Authored by Mary Gilleece via dailysceptic.org,

The recent news that one in eight children are now reported by their parents as being disabled ought to prompt an immediate national inquiry into what on earth is causing a large proportion of the population to sicken.

That millions of children and young people are stricken with disabilities ought to be front page news every day until it is sorted out.

The Telegraph reports:

About 12% of children – or around 1.7 million youngsters – are now living with a long-term illness, disability or impairment, according to fresh figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

This has almost doubled since 2015, when roughly 7% of parents said their child had a disability, according to the department’s closely-watched Family Resources Survey (FRS).

It also comes amid a sharp increase in young people being diagnosed with behavioural issues as well as autism and ADHD.

Almost two-thirds of children with a disability had a “social” or “behavioural” impairment – by far the most common issue cited by parents, the FRS found.

The figures involved ought to terrify everyone for they reveal a population that is riven with ill-health and impairment. If accurate, a National Commission into ‘Physical Deterioration’ similar to the one conducted by Fitzroy in 1904 to find out what was causing the ill-health of young people is needed immediately. With such staggering levels of illness, there is no hope at all that our country will ever return to growth. The Telegraph continues:

The number of children with behavioural disorders who are eligible for disability living allowance (DLA) has almost quadrupled to 276,000 since before the pandemic. This total includes 10,000 children under five and 14 children who are less than a year old.

Roughly 16.7 million people – representing a quarter of Britons – now live with a disability. More women than men claim they have an impairment, though disability is more prevalent among boys than girls.

Scottish people are also more likely to say they are disabled than people living in England or Wales.

The figures show roughly 700,000 of children considered disabled are under 10. More people under 20 are also now in this category than Britons aged over 80.

I am appalled that no-one in politics is calling for an immediate inquiry into these dreadful illnesses destroying the health and chances of so many children. Sure Alan Milburn has been asked to look at the benefits system, but who is investigating the children themselves to find out why they are all so poorly?

The Fitzroy Report was commissioned after the Boer War when it had become apparent that large percentages of recruits were rejected from the Army physical reasons. The report sought:

(1) To furnish the Government and the Nation at large with periodical data for an accurate comparative estimate of the health and physique of the people;

(2) to indicate generally the causes of such physical deterioration as does exist in certain classes;

and (3) to point out the means by which it can be most effectually diminished.

It was thorough in its analysis and took a broad approach to finding out why children were failing to thrive. The commissioners examined such things as “cellar-based and back-to-back housing”, “the employment of mothers too soon after childbirth”, “white bread”, “abuse of tea”, “the desire for pleasure”, “hereditary taint”, “the universal preference amongst the women for factory over domestic life”, “the school system”, “incompetent care”, “parental ignorance and neglect” and “juvenile smoking”, for instance. In a foreshadowing of the current Ultra Processed Food debate, it reports:

A striking consensus of opinion was elicited as to the effects of improper or insufficient food in determining physique, and this factor was acknowledged by every witness to be prominent among the causes to which degenerative tendencies might be assigned, though in one or two cases its relative importance was thought liable to exaggeration.

These latest figures about the catastrophic ill-health of our nation’s children surely ought to demand an equivalent commission. After all, what prompted the 1904 Fitzroy Report is not far off what is happening with today’s Army recruits – growing rejection owing to feeble mental and physical health. In 2019-2020, 28.9% of applicants were rejected for medical reasons growing to 39.2% in 2022-3. Of these, 54% of medical rejections between 2020-24 were for mental health or psychiatric reasons.

This is surely terrifying stuff – our mentally enfeebled young are not fit to fight, to be in school or work. What on earth has happened?

Someone surely should be trying to work out what’s to blame. White bread? Juvenile vaping? Out of town housing estates with no public transport? Smartphones? Gaming? Parental ignorance and neglect?  Perhaps others will take up my cry for a national inquiry and calls will grow for someone like Hillary Cass or Louise Casey to get to the bottom of it all.

Or perhaps such an inquiry would discover that actually there’s nothing wrong at all with these children. Instead it will become obvious that millions of healthy children and young adults are being used in an obscene financial grift by private health and education providers, mental health charities and a gullible welfare system.

Terrifying either way.

A new report from researchers at the University of New South Wales in Australia, published in Carcinogenesis, finds that nicotine-based e-cigarettes are likely to cause lung and oral cancers, a finding that may alarm the millions of young people, from high school through college, and into the professional world, who use them heavily. 

Researchers examined human studies, animal experiments, and lab tests. Together, they found signs that vaping can damage DNA, cause inflammation and oxidative stress, and expose users to harmful chemicals considered drivers of cancer. Some rodent studies also found lung tumors after vape exposure.

“Nicotine-based e-cigarettes are likely to be carcinogenic to humans who use them, causing an indeterminate burden of oral cancer and lung cancer,” the researchers wrote in the report.

The researchers still don’t fully understand the long-term risks, given that vaping only entered commercial markets worldwide in the last 20 or so years. However, they say the warning signs are already present and should not be ignored as cigarette risks once were.

“Though smoking was once given the benefit of the doubt, the same should not now be accorded to vaping, given the strength of relevant carcinogenicity data,” wrote study co-authors Freddy Sitas and Bernard Stewart of UNSW in a related commentary.

Vaping in the U.S. emerged in 2007 and was widely touted as a safer way to consume nicotine than traditional methods involving inhaling smoke from burning tobacco leaves. The trend exploded in 2015 with the introduction of Juul.

Millions of Americans started vaping to quit smoking cigarettes. Instead, if the study is correct, they may actually be increasing their health risks.

Vaping is not as harmless as once thought, and the researchers’ point is that e-cigarettes should not receive the same “benefit of the doubt” cigarettes once did, because the cancer warning signs are already present.

Even before the assessment was released, NielsenIQ data showed e-cigarette sales in the U.S. were weak as of March 21 (according to the Goldman report, which can be viewed in full here for Pro subscribers):

Within Tobacco, dollar sales for BAT were up 1.8% over the past four weeks, versus 1.0% last month; sales for IMB were down 3.5% over the past four weeks, versus down 3.4% last month; and sales for MO were down 2.0% over the past four weeks, versus down 3.2% last month.

The question now is whether the study will go viral and alarm consumers enough with cancer fears, and whether those fears will be enough to change spending behavior in a way that shows up in the NielsenIQ data over the coming weeks.

Via Remix News,

Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) met with controversial Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former jihadi terrorist, in Berlin on Monday afternoon.

Among the topics discussed, one of the most prominent was the fact that Merz wants 80 percent of the Syrians currently living in Germany to return home.

“In the longer perspective of the next three years, it is the wish of President al-Sharaa that around 80 percent of the Syrians in Germany should go back into their homeland,” said Merz, before adding: “We need a reliable repatriation option, cooperation with Syria.”

Merz said he supported that, saying many of them “are needed at home.”

The chancellor also made clear that protection statuses would be reassessed.

“Those who have no claim will leave Germany again,” he said — particularly those who “abuse our hospitality.” He balanced this with an acknowledgment that “we are pleased about the many Syrian skilled workers who have integrated.”

Merz reflected on how, roughly a year ago, the dictatorship in Syria “was shaken off,” and reaffirmed that Germany had always stood by the Syrian people, despite the new government being accused of a number of atrocities against minorities, including Christians and Druze.

Merz described reconstruction as an “enormous effort,” stressing that stability and economic performance would be essential for it to succeed. A German delegation is set to travel to Syria “in a few days” to advance cooperation on that front.

The Syrian head of state opened by expressing his “deep gratitude” to Germany, declaring that “Syria is an important country for Europe” and that the country could “come back stronger,” adding: “We want to rebuild our country.”

He noted that 1.3 million Syrians currently live in Germany, including 6,000 doctors who could make a significant contribution to Syria’s recovering economy.

🇸🇾🇩🇪 German politicians are spreading misleading information about Syrian doctors working in Germany.

5,000 Syrian doctors may sound like a lot, but there are 420,000 doctors in Germany. The number of Syrian doctors is approximately just enough to cover the 1 million Syrian… pic.twitter.com/fHJh9945y9

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) December 30, 2024

As Remix News has reported in the past, Syria lost many of its doctors due to the war, with many of them ending up in Germany and other countries in the West. However, many of them have expressed little interest in returning home.

Al-Sharaa outlined a vision for a “cycle” allowing Syrians to return home, while those who wish to remain in Germany would be able to work there. He described the new Syria as a constitutional state “for all Syrians — without exception,” emphasizing that the country is “very diverse” and committed to deepening the “rule of law,” pledging to work with Germany “in great transparency.”

Despite what al-Sharaa said and what Merz may desire, there is little evidence that most Syrians have any incentive or motivation to return home.

For one, many of them have already become German citizens, and more are being naturalized each month. Even if the German government wanted to return them, they would have no legal mechanism for doing so unless the entire constitution were rewritten. There have been some extremely isolated instances where German authorities have attempted to strip citizenship, but only for extreme violations of German law, such as terrorism offenses.

Syrians also have little financial basis to return to a war-torn country — one that remains unstable. In Germany, they have access to free healthcare, housing, social welfare, and a host of other benefits not available in Syria. However, German conservatives have been pushing for a return of hundreds of thousands of Syrians who have not yet obtained citizenship, arguing that, overall, the migrant group has been a net drain on welfare and society. Furthermore, since the fall of Assad, the basis for their asylum is generally no longer present.

Syrian migrants have been responsible for an enormous amount of crime in Germany since their arrival, including 135,000 Syrian crimes against Germans since 2015.

🇩🇪🔴German police say members of an extended Syrian clan family are said to have committed at least 160 crimes in Stuttgart.

They have cost Germany nearly €500,000 in prison detention fees alone, and that is just for 5 of the highly criminal family.

Now, Germany was so… pic.twitter.com/At9ZKozb5U

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) December 23, 2025

Merz announced that Germany would help “stabilise Syria” with €200 million directed toward expanding water supplies, hospitals and vocational schools, assuring al-Sharaa: “You can count on Germany’s support.”

Merz closed with a direct appeal to his Syrian counterpart: “Create a space for everyone in the new Syria!” He tied future joint projects to the rule of law taking hold in Syria, expressing confidence that this goal was within reach.

Read more here…

Authored by John Velleco via Gun Owners of America,

This week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that could redefine one of the most fundamental questions in American law: Who is a citizen of the United States?

Does birth on U.S. soil automatically confer citizenship, even when the parents owe allegiance to a foreign nation?

Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation, along with several others, have filed a Friend of the Court brief urging the Court to take a fresh look at that question. At issue are two cases, State of Washington v. Trump and Barbara v. Trump, challenging President Trump’s 2025 Executive Order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

What interest do Second Amendment rights organizations have in asking the Court to review a case that on its face deals with immigration and the practice of so-called birthright citizenship?

The answer is simple and goes to the heart of who, precisely, constitutes a nation. A nation is defined by those who pledge loyalty to it, not by those who briefly cross its borders for the sole purpose of obtaining citizenship by birth. Citizenship must reflect genuine allegiance and lasting connection, or it becomes little more than an administrative label, stripped of substance. And the rights uniquely reserved for citizens, especially the right to keep and bear arms, gradually lose the constitutional footing needed to sustain and protect them.

The Trump executive order simply reaffirms a principle that was once widely understood but has been steadily obscured: citizenship is not an accident of geography, but a solemn bond of allegiance. It directs federal agencies not to treat as U.S. citizens those born here to parents who are neither American citizens nor lawful permanent residents. This policy aligns precisely with the text and original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” That second phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is not a throwaway clause. It was deliberately inserted to exclude from automatic citizenship those who owe allegiance to another country.

Opponents of the Executive Order rely on the assumption that any person born on U.S. soil, apart from two narrow exceptions, is automatically an American citizen. A reexamination of the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and its framers’ words shows that this assumption rests on shaky constitutional ground.

When Congress debated the amendment in 1866, Senator Jacob Howard explained it “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens… but will include every other class of persons.” Senator Lyman Trumbull clarified that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Their intent was clear: the amendment was meant to ensure citizenship for freed slaves, not to create a perpetual magnet for illegal immigration or birth tourism.

Over the decades, that original understanding was gradually eroded by administrative habit and judicial drift. Judicial decisions and administrative practices have treated children born on U.S. soil to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents, including those here illegally or temporarily, as automatic U.S. citizens. That practice, unsupported by statute or constitutional text, has profound consequences.

The consequences extend far beyond immigration. Citizenship is the gateway to full political rights, responsibilities, and constitutional protections. Among these, the Second Amendment stands uniquely tied to the concept of citizenship. The Founders viewed the right to keep and bear arms as inseparable from the duties and privileges of free citizens, individuals who shared in the responsibility of defending their communities and preserving liberty.

When citizenship is detached from allegiance, the political understanding of “the people” who possess this right becomes blurred. Courts and policymakers then face pressure to reinterpret the Second Amendment in ways that weaken it for everyone. As Gun Owners of America has warned in its amicus brief, the Second Amendment does not erode all at once. It erodes gradually, as the definition of the political community itself is reshaped.

This is why the question before the Court is not merely about immigration policy. It is about the integrity of citizenship itself and the constitutional structure that depends on it.

It was the Administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt which expanded citizenship to include virtually anyone born here, and it is President Trump who wants to return us to our historical roots.  When FDR redefined who is a citizen, he imbued them with the constitutional rights that belong only to citizens, including the Second Amendment.  However, if illegal aliens have Second Amendment Rights given to them without any duty of allegiance, those rights for all of us can be expected to be quite weak indeed. 

Restoring citizenship to its constitutional foundation does not require invention. It requires adherence to the text, history, and original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress, not FDR and the federal agencies, possesses the authority to establish rules for naturalization. The American people, not executive policy, must determine who joins the political community.

President Trump’s executive order does not change the Constitution; it enforces it. It honors the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment framers and restores clarity to our national identity. The Court should overturn the misguided lower-court rulings, and restore the full meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

John Velleco is the Executive Vice President of Gun Owners of America.

Remember when blues state Democrats tried to enforce sweeping pandemic mandates for years after it became clear that covid was not the “mass killer” that the supposed experts claimed it would be?  Remember when they called for people to be jailed for publicly speaking about scientific facts that contradicted the narrative?  Remember when they called for people’s children to be taken away if they refused to vaccinate? 

Remember how millions of people left blue states in response to the far-left madness?  Well, Democrats are now pretending that none of that ever happened, but they can’t hide the continuing consequences of their draconian policies.  

The historic population shift that escalated during the pandemic era is still well underway, though the causes are now more economic than political.  We recently covered New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s sad attempt to beg wealthy NY taxpayers to stop leaving her state.  However, New York is only one of multiple blue regions being crushed by an ongoing wealth exodus. 

New York Gov Kathy Hochul is begging wealthy people who have moved to Florida and Texas to come back to New York and pay taxes. 🤣

“I need people who are high net worth to support the generous social programs that we want to have in our state. Now, there are some patriotic… pic.twitter.com/B4ql1ktcq6

— Based Jessica (@RealJessica) March 18, 2026

New data from states like Massachusetts indicate that Democrat efforts to institute state level “wealth taxes” are driving out business owners and corporations, and these residents are taking billions in tax revenues with them.  

Massachusetts was hit with loss of $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income in 2023, one of the largest totals in the country, after passing a tax on millionaires.  The amount was an 8% year-over-year increase, according to the Internal Revenue Service.  The state witnessed a net loss of over 41,000 residents in 2022-2023. Keep in mind, this as during the Biden open borders crisis, and over 50,000 migrants also flooded into MA in that same time period.  

In other words, even with mass immigration, blue states still lost huge numbers of resident.  And, they essentially replaced high earning and wealthy taxpayers with low earning and no-tax migrants.   

Other states dealing with a net loss of residents and wealth include:

California, which has led the nation in net domestic out-migration for six consecutive years. In the period July 2024 -July 2025, the state lost approximately 229,000 residents domestically.  Previous years saw losses of around 239,000–400,000+ annually.  California also lost $11.9 billion in net AGI in 2023 alone.

New York recorded the second-highest domestic losses with 137,586 residents leaving (net) in 2024-2025. IRS data shows significant adjusted gross income outflows, including $9.9 billion lost in one year (2022–2023) and a decade-long net loss exceeding $111 billion.

Illinois suffered a net domestic loss of around 40,017 residents in 2024-2025 (down from higher figures in prior years, but still among the top losers).  IL lost a net $6 billion in AGI from 2022 to 2023.  

Washington State is on the progressive path the self destruction with multiple new taxes, including a “Millionaires Tax” passed this year which is expected to drive most corporations and moderately sized businesses out of the area.  The new law requires a nearly 10% tax on any earners making over $1 million per year.  

Other blue states like New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Hawaii also top the lists for out-migration of wealthy resident.  And where is all this money going?  Largely to red states with less taxes and less bureaucracy.  The point being that, ever increasing taxation is not the solution to a successful state economy.  Only states where people want to live are going to do well.    

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order that establishes a list of voters eligible to vote by mail in an effort to crack down on cheating. 

“The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible what has been going on,” said Trump, adding “If you don’t have honest voting, you can’t have, really, a nation.” 

🚨 BREAKING: By stroke of pen, President Trump signs landmark executive order that CRACKS DOWN on mass mail-in voting and ensures citizenship

“That’s a BIG DEAL.”

The order:
– Requires DHS to create a list of US CITIZENS with the help of the Social Security Administration
-… pic.twitter.com/mEvICTudiQ

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 31, 2026

What the EO does:

• Creates verified “State Citizenship Lists”: Directs the Department of Homeland Security (via USCIS) and Social Security Administration to compile and send each state a list of confirmed U.S. citizens who are 18+ and reside in that state, drawn from federal databases (e.g., citizenship/naturalization records, SAVE program). These lists must be updated and transmitted at least 60 days before federal elections. Note: Being on the list does not mean you’re automatically registered to vote—that still follows state laws.
• Restricts USPS mail-in ballot distribution: Instructs the U.S. Postal Service to start a rulemaking process (within 60 days, final rule in 120 days) so that mail-in/absentee ballots are only sent to individuals on state-specific “Mail-In and Absentee Participation Lists” that states can provide/supplement. Ballots must use secure, automation-compatible envelopes marked as “Official Election Mail” with unique Intelligent Mail barcodes (or similar tracking tech) for auditable tracking.
• Enforcement and penalties: The Attorney General must prioritize investigations and prosecutions of anyone (including state/local officials) who sends ballots to ineligible voters or engages in related fraud. It also allows withholding federal funds from noncompliant states/localities where legally authorized.

The order invokes the Help America Vote Act and National Voter Registration Act, as well as the president’s duty to enforce election-related criminal statutes.

“We believe, combined, the measures in this order will help secure elections in the future and ensure the many abuses of our elections in the past are not repeated in future elections,” said Will Scharf, White House staff secretary and assistant to the president. 

And of course, it will be insta-halted by a judge in short order as it’s expected to spark legal challenges. 

“This executive order is a blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement.

“Make no mistake: Trump’s attacks on our elections are a clear and present threat to our democracy.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected the order as illegal and warned of incoming litigation. “The President wants to limit which Americans can participate in our democracy,” Newsom’s press office wrote on March 31 on X. “California will see him in court.” 

Democrat megalwayer Marc Elias called it a “massive and unconstitutional voter suppression effort aimed at giving Trump the power to create a list of who is allowed to vote by mail.

This is a massive and unconstitutional voter suppression effort aimed at giving Trump the power to create a list of who is allowed to vote by mail.

We know where this will go — the targeting of Democrats for mass disenfranchisement.

We will sue and we will win. https://t.co/iw8U6BuhUA

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) March 31, 2026

Another week, another couple of activist judges ruling against the Trump administration.

On Tuesday, federal judges issued orders blocking the ongoing ballroom construction at the White House, and halted federal agencies from pulling funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

On the Ballroom: U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said the president of the United States “is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!”

Leon said Trump claims Congress gave the president authority in current statutes to build his East Wing ballroom project “and to do it with private funds.”

The National Trust for Historic Preservation argues the president has no such authority under existing laws and that a preliminary injunction is needed to avoid irreparable harm, the judge said. -Epoch Times

“I have concluded that the National Trust is likely to succeed on the merits because no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have,” Leon continued – granting a preliminary injunction and ordering that “the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion.”

On NPR and PBS, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, based in Washington, said Trump’s order targeted the broadcasters, known as NPR and PBS, for their point of view. 

“The First Amendment does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type,” he wrote in a 62-page decision. 

As the Epoch Times notes further, Trump’s May 1, 2025, order directed the end of funding for NPR and PBS. “Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence,” he said, adding later that it did not matter which viewpoints NPR and PBS promoted, but “what does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.”

In a fact sheet released on the same day, the White House said that NPR and PBS had “fueled partisanship and left-wing propaganda with taxpayer dollars.”

Officials pointed to decisions such as NPR refusing to initially cover a story on a laptop computer that once belonged to President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, and PBS featuring a drag queen on a program aimed at children as young as 3.

NPR and PBS soon filed separate lawsuits that alleged the funding cuts were unconstitutional.

NPR’s suit said that the order violated “the First Amendment’s bedrock guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association.”

In court filings, government lawyers had said the order did not impose unconstitutional conditions on speech, but “merely aligns the Government’s sponsorship of activities with its policy priorities” and “declines to extend federal funding for Plaintiffs’ programs.”

Moss said that he was declaring Trump’s order illegal and unenforceable, and barring all federal agencies named as defendants from implementing or enforcing it.

“This is a ridiculous ruling by an activist judge attempting to undermine the law,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, told The Epoch Times in an email. “NPR and PBS have no right to receive taxpayer funds, and Congress already voted to defund them. The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”

A PBS spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email that the outlet is thrilled with the decision.

“As we argued, and Judge Moss ruled, the executive order is textbook unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation, in violation of longstanding First Amendment principles,” the spokesperson said. “At PBS, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation’s most trusted media institution.”

Authored by Brett Rowland via The Center Square,

The U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit Monday against Minnesota, alleging the state’s sports policies violate federal civil rights laws that protect against sex-based discrimination.

Title IX, the landmark federal law enacted in 1972, prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities that receive federal funding.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit marks a new legal fight in the ongoing national debate over transgender student participation in school sports, challenging Minnesota’s policies as a violation of federal protections against sex-based discrimination.

The lawsuit contends that the Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota State High School League have engaged in sex-based discrimination by requiring girls to compete against boys in sports designated for girls.

“The Trump Administration does not tolerate flawed state policies that ignore biological reality and unfairly undermine girls on the playing field,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement.

The lawsuit asks a judge to rule that Minnesota’s policies regarding student athletes are illegal and to declare that the state has violated Title IX. The DOJ said Minnesota gets $3 billion in yearly federal funding.

Federal prosecutors argue that the state’s policies “eviscerate equal athletic opportunities for girls.”

“They also require girls to share intimate spaces – such as locker rooms – with boys. Allowing boys to invade sensitive female-only spaces endangers girls’ privacy, dignity, and safety – causing a hostile educational environment that denies girls educational opportunities,” attorneys for the Civil Rights Division wrote in the complaint against the state.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said his office will stand up for transgender students.

“In April of last year, I sued the Trump administration to stop them from targeting trans kids who just want to play on their school team,” he said in a statement to The Center Square. “This new suit is just a sad attempt to get attention over something that’s already been in litigation for months.”

The aircraft carrier USS George HW Bush departed its homeport in Virginia on Tuesday to begin operations for its scheduled deployment, at a moment the Iran war has shown signs of escalation – even as the White House signals it’s ready to find an offramp. The new carrier group could add a big further US force injection, assuming that’s the purpose.

The Bush carrier just launched from Naval Station Norfolk, the Navy confirmed. The full George HW Bush Carrier Strike Group includes Carrier Air Wing 7 over 5,000 sailors and military personnel, and accompanying destroyers – the USS Ross, USS Donald Cook and USS Mason – which are expected to joint the Bush carrier as it transits the Atlantic Ocean.

📍NORFOLK, Va. – The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), the flagship of the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group, departs Naval Station Norfolk to begin operations in support of its scheduled deployment, March 31, 2026. pic.twitter.com/ePDTv4IcPE

— U.S. Fleet Forces (@USFleetForces) March 31, 2026

At this point it is unclear whether its final destination will be related to the Iran theatre of operations, either on the eastern Mediterranean or in the Gulf region – but Rear Adm. Alexis Walker, commander of the strike group has said the group’s “sailors are ready and able to do the nation’s bidding.“

The carrier’s scheduled area of operations is the US Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations, which does include the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

The USS Abraham Lincoln is currently launching US warplane flights engaged in the bombing of Iran, and the USS Ford has been forced to return to port, now in Split, Croatia – after a large fire on board which resulted in injuries.

The US Navy has said the Ford’s urgent repairs were for things which don’t impact the vessel’s combat systems.

Forbes details that “While in port on the Greek island, Forward Deployed Regional Maintenance Center personnel, including structural engineers, naval architects, and other subject matter experts, conducted an initial repair assessment, the U.S. Navy announced. In addition, military and federal civilian law enforcement continued investigations into a fire serious enough to require the ship to head to Split.”

Bryan Clark, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has said: “They are probably mostly repairs to the laundry and surrounding berthing spaces, so laundry equipment, insulation, lighting, internal bulkheads, etc.”

Earlier in the Iran war Pentagon officials acknowledged the fire but presented it as an ‘accident’ amid an ongoing investigation, despite Iran saying it attacked the carrier. Speculation has since grown over whether this is a Pentagon cover-up to conceal that it was successfully attacked by the Iranians, especially given the the damage appears worse than initially reported.

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Supreme Court is set to consider a landmark case challenging President Donald Trump’s bid to limit birthright citizenship.

The case, known as Trump v. Barbara, is set for oral argument on April 1.

Upon entering office, Trump signed an order barring the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States from securing citizenship. It also applies to mothers on temporary U.S. visas who give birth in the country.

The order has been blocked by local courts pending the high court’s decision.

The justices are expected to wrestle with the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. That part of the amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Here are some of the key questions in the case and how they’ve been debated.

What Does ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Mean?

Much of the debate has focused on these five words from the amendment: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The wording of the 14th Amendment indicates that merely being born within U.S. borders is not enough for citizenship. That’s partially why the Supreme Court, in a 19th-century decision, said the children of foreign diplomats and those born in Native American territory do not receive citizenship.

One of the main questions before the Supreme Court is why and how these groups of people might differ from the children of illegal immigrants.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing children and their mothers, has argued that people are subject to U.S. jurisdiction if they are obligated to follow its laws. Diplomats and Native Americans are excluded because they belong to other sovereign nations.

The Justice Department has focused more on the concept of allegiance, namely that illegal immigrant parents lack allegiance to the United States and therefore aren’t fully subject to the country’s jurisdiction.

Did the Supreme Court Already Decide This Issue?

Last year, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision lifting several blocks on Trump’s policy, but did so in a limited way. That decision, known as Trump v. CASA, only clarified how far judges could go in blocking the president.

The current case is inviting the justices to delve deeper into the 14th Amendment and one of its much older decisions from 1898. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment guaranteed birthright citizenship to a Chinese man whose parents were permanently domiciled in the United States.

Many federal judges have cited that decision to say that the Supreme Court already said the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to people born on U.S. soil—including those born to illegal immigrants.

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Trump’s policy, it pointed to a portion of the 1898 opinion that identified three exceptions: children of Native American tribes, those “born of aliens in hostile occupation,” and “children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state.”

The Justice Department argued instead that the 19th-century decision applied only to children whose parents were domiciled, or residing with some kind of allegiance to the country.

It noted that the court repeatedly referred to domiciled status. For example, the majority opinion read, “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.”

Another portion of the opinion said that Chinese persons owed allegiance to the United States and were entitled to its protection “so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here.”

It’s unclear how the six conservative justices will rule, but the three liberal justices have already said in an opinion last year that Trump’s policy was “unquestionably unconstitutional.”

What Did Congress Intend When It Proposed the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 against the backdrop of the Civil War and the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held that slaves were not citizens.

The Justice Department said the United States overturned that decision with the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That law specified that persons born in the United States, “and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” were citizens.

That law and statements from members of Congress will likely bear on the Supreme Court’s decision-making, as many of the justices have been viewed as originalists, or giving especially strong weight to the nation’s history.

The Justice Department pointed to, among other things, what Sen. James Wilson of Iowa said about the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

At the time, he said, “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except … children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

The ACLU said that Wilson’s comment was incorrect and conflicted with English common law, which has been cited in legal decisions such as Wong Kim Ark.

In a briefing to the Supreme Court, the ACLU cited English legal scholar William Blackstone. Writing in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” Blackstone said, “Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth.”

Is Trump Violating Federal Law?

The ACLU and congressional Democrats have argued that outside of the 14th Amendment, Trump is also violating a federal law passed in the 20th Century.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and its predecessor, known as the Nationality Act of 1940, used the 14th Amendment’s phrasing. It states in part that “the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

A long list of congressional Democrats filed an amicus, or friend of the court, brief telling the Supreme Court that regardless of what the 14th Amendment meant, Congress interpreted it as giving citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants when it enacted the 1952 legislation.

Because that was the lawmakers’ intent when they passed the bills, Democrats argued, the 1952 law was an independent reason to reject Trump’s executive order.

The administration argued that because the laws were transplanting language from the 14th Amendment, the original meaning of the amendment—not how Congress interpreted it—should rule.

Legal scholar Ed Whelan speculated that the Supreme Court might focus on the Immigration and Nationality Act but refuse to rule on the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

“My guess is that the Chief will be part of a supermajority of the Court that rules that the [executive order] violates section 1401(a) and that declines to address the constitutional question,” he said in a post on X.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who worked on immigration issues, disagreed.

“Although courts, including the Supreme Court, avoid constitutional rulings when cases can be decided on narrower statutory grounds, the [Immigration and Nationality Act] mirrors the language of the 14th Amendment, so the justices are unlikely to rely on statutory authority alone,” he told The Epoch Times.