Tag: political commentary Page 2 of 6

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS – AUGUST 25: Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker speaks to the press while on board a water taxi passing Trump Tower on the Chicago River on August 25, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois. Pritzker spoke about about President Donald Trump’s plan to send National Guard troops into Chicago. Recent reports have stated that Trump plans to deploy troops to the city as early as next month. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

In August 2025, President Donald Trump once again threatened to use military force in a major American city—this time Chicago. In remarks to reporters, he escalated his rhetoric by calling Chicago “a disaster” and “a killing field,” arguing that the city required federal intervention to restore order (Politico, 2025). While presented as a public safety measure, this plan has little to do with crime reduction and much more to do with political theater. By targeting Democratic-led cities like Chicago, Trump is reinforcing his strongman image while undermining constitutional principles of local governance. His approach reflects a dangerous authoritarian drift, particularly given his earlier actions in Washington, D.C.

Chicago has become a focal point of Trump’s political attacks. Reports indicate that his administration has explored not only the deployment of the National Guard, but also using ICE agents with potential operations staged out of Naval Station Great Lakes (Nakashima & Arkin, 2025). Local officials, however, have responded with strong resistance. Governor J.B. Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson have emphasized that the President lacks unilateral authority to deploy troops in Illinois, and they are preparing legal strategies to prevent such action. Advocacy groups in Chicago have also begun organizing both legal and grassroots resistance, arguing that the introduction of federal troops would erode community trust and criminalize immigrant populations already under strain (Klayman & Shepardson, 2025).

At the heart of this conflict lies a legal and constitutional dilemma. The military is not designed to perform law enforcement duties. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, federal military forces are largely prohibited from engaging in domestic policing. Even the National Guard, which can support state governments in emergencies, is meant to operate under state—not federal—control unless extraordinary conditions justify nationalization. For Trump to act, he would likely invoke the Insurrection Act, a rarely used measure intended for situations of open rebellion or insurrection. Yet Chicago is not in rebellion; in fact, violent crime in the city has dropped significantly in recent years, with homicides falling by more than 50 percent since 2021 (Klayman & Shepardson, 2025). Governor Pritzker has rightly argued that the Guard is not needed in Chicago, describing Trump’s claim of a crime crisis as exaggerated and politically opportunistic (Associated Press, 2025b).

This political opportunism is perhaps the most telling aspect of the proposed deployment. Trump has not threatened to send troops to conservative cities facing crime problems; instead, his threats have focused squarely on Democratic-led cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, and Los Angeles. Analysts see this pattern as a deliberate political strategy aimed at energizing his base by portraying “blue cities” as out of control and hostile to law and order. In reality, these deployments are less about public safety and more about consolidating power and projecting an authoritarian style of governance (Associated Press, 2025a).

The events in Washington, D.C. earlier in August provide a striking precedent. Trump declared a “crime emergency” in the District despite evidence that crime was at a thirty-year low. He then assumed control over the Metropolitan Police Department, deployed the D.C. National Guard, and placed federal law enforcement agencies in charge of local operations (Douglas, 2025). The move was widely criticized as unconstitutional, with the D.C. Attorney General filing legal challenges and polls showing overwhelming local opposition. Scholars such as Lawrence Douglas (2025) have noted that these actions were not responses to genuine crises but rather examples of governance by political spectacle, in which the appearance of strength matters more than the rule of law.

Chicago now finds itself in danger of becoming the next stage for this spectacle. The city has made progress in reducing violence through community-based initiatives, investments in social programs, and reimagined policing strategies. Introducing federal troops threatens to undo these gains, potentially sparking unrest rather than restoring order. More troublingly, it normalizes the use of military force in domestic political conflicts, setting a precedent that undermines democratic governance at both the local and national level.

Ultimately, Trump’s threat to militarize Chicago represents an abuse of power. It is not a measured response to a public safety crisis, but a political maneuver designed to intimidate Democratic strongholds and consolidate executive authority. The military is not trained for law enforcement, nor is it legally authorized to serve as a domestic police force under ordinary conditions. By framing his actions as necessary to restore order, Trump is masking authoritarian tactics in the language of public safety. If unchallenged, this strategy risks eroding the democratic foundations of American governance and moving the nation closer to a model of executive domination rather than shared power.

In moments such as this, vigilance is essential. The people of Chicago—and Americans more broadly—must recognize that the debate is not truly about crime but about power. Allowing a president to deploy troops for political theater undermines both constitutional law and democratic norms. Trump’s threat to send the military into Chicago should be understood for what it is: an authoritarian abuse of power that endangers not just one city, but the principles of democracy itself.

References

Associated Press. (2025a, August 27). Democratic governors look to derail Trump’s plan to send National Guard to Chicago and other cities. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/988a659d9d13deb1e7a8f52cf47efef8

Associated Press. (2025b, August 25). Guard not needed in Chicago, Pritzker tells AP during tour of city to counter Trump’s crime claims. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/2023e25445c45a3f0f4d3513e8eb2ac4

Douglas, L. (2025, August 27). Trump’s militarization of the DC police was just an opening salvo. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/27/january-6-trump-chicago-military

Klayman, B., & Shepardson, D. (2025, August 28). In Chicago, locals prepare for Trump’s possible deployment of National Guard. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/chicago-locals-prepare-trumps-possible-deployment-national-guard-2025-08-28

Nakashima, E., & Arkin, D. (2025, August 27). ICE asks for access to Chicago-area Navy base to assist operations. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/27/trump-chicago-ice-military

Politico. (2025, August 25). Trump reiterates threat to send National Guard to Chicago. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/25/trump-national-guard-chicago-00523253

OPM Ends Gender-Affirming Care in 2026

By Katherine Walter

On August 25, 2025

In LGBTQ+ rights

The recent announcement from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that gender-affirming health care will be excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) programs beginning in 2026 represents a profound step backward in civil rights and health equity. Under this directive, chemical and surgical interventions for gender transition will no longer be covered, though counseling for gender dysphoria must remain available. Insurance carriers are required to develop exceptions processes for individuals currently undergoing such care, yet the parameters of those processes remain undefined. Providers of gender-affirming care are also barred from being listed in plan directories, effectively discouraging access (Office of Personnel Management, 2025; Moss, 2025).

To understand the gravity of this reversal, it is necessary to recall how hard-fought the gains for transgender health care under FEHB were. In 2014, OPM lifted the longstanding blanket exclusion of gender-affirming procedures, and by 2016 carriers were instructed not to categorically deny such care. This change aligned federal benefits with emerging medical consensus that gender-affirming treatments are not elective but medically necessary. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society have long affirmed that access to hormone therapy and surgeries significantly reduces psychological distress, improves quality of life, and prevents serious health complications (Hembree et al., 2017; Coleman et al., 2022). For nearly a decade, transgender federal employees and retirees could rely on this coverage as a matter of equity and recognition of their humanity.

As a transgender woman who has been receiving gender-affirming health care for more than eleven years, this policy shift strikes me not just as a bureaucratic adjustment but as a direct threat to my life and well-being. Having undergone an orchiectomy, I rely on estradiol not simply as an affirming treatment, but as essential hormone replacement. Without it, my bones, cardiovascular health, cognition, and emotional stability would be at severe risk. Estradiol for me is no different than thyroid medication for someone with hypothyroidism—it is medically necessary, lifelong care. To see it lumped under a politically charged category of “optional” transition services is both scientifically inaccurate and deeply insulting.

What unsettles me most is the uncertainty this policy creates. OPM’s promise of an “exceptions process” offers little clarity. Will it protect those of us with medical histories spanning over a decade of consistent care? Or will it force us into endless appeals and denials, treating every prescription refill as a battle? This ambiguity is destabilizing, and I cannot help but feel that it is intentional—designed to make care harder to access and to discourage providers from stepping forward.

As a federal retiree, I gave years of service under the assumption that the benefits I earned would protect me equitably. Now, I feel as though my identity has made me a target within the very system I trusted. The estimated 14,000 transgender federal employees and retirees who will be affected are not faceless statistics; we are people who dedicated our careers to serving this country, only to be told that our health care needs are unworthy of recognition (Lambda Legal, 2025; them.us, 2025). The exclusion also signals a dangerous precedent: that essential medical care can be stripped away not because of evidence or cost, but because of politics.

This change must be understood in its broader social context. Over the past decade, transgender Americans have seen both progress and backlash. The Affordable Care Act’s Section 1557 extended nondiscrimination protections in health care, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) affirmed that gender identity is protected under Title VII. Yet, simultaneously, states across the country have passed laws restricting access to gender-affirming care, particularly for youth, framing these measures as cultural wedge issues. The OPM directive extends that wave of exclusion into the federal system, embedding discrimination into the nation’s largest employer-based insurance program.

For me personally, this is not an abstract policy debate. It is about whether I will be able to continue accessing the medication that keeps me healthy and alive. It is about whether the years of progress we celebrated were only temporary reprieves. And it is about what message this sends to younger transgender people entering federal service today: that their health and dignity can be used as bargaining chips in political battles.

I cannot help but feel anxious about what the future holds, but I also feel resolved. This rollback will not go unchallenged. Advocacy groups such as Lambda Legal, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and others have already condemned it as unlawful and are preparing legal strategies (Lambda Legal, 2025). As a transgender woman and a retiree, I plan to add my voice to that chorus, because silence is what allows discrimination to endure. We have fought too hard, and for too long, to let the ground be taken out from under us without resistance.

References

Coleman, E., Radix, A. E., Bouman, W. P., Brown, G. R., de Vries, A. L. C., Deutsch, M. B., … Winter, S. (2022). Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(sup1), S1–S259. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644

Hembree, W. C., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Gooren, L., Hannema, S. E., Meyer, W. J., Murad, M. H., … T’Sjoen, G. G. (2017). Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 102(11), 3869–3903. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-01658

Lambda Legal. (2025, August 19). Lambda Legal condemns Trump administration’s illegal exclusion of gender-affirming care from employee health benefits. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://lambdalegal.org/newsroom

Moss, K. (2025, August 20). Coverage for gender-affirming care will be eliminated from FEHB plans in 2026. Government Executive. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://www.govexec.com

Office of Personnel Management. (2025). Carrier Letter 2025-01b: Chemical and surgical sex-trait modification exclusion. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://opm.gov

them.us. (2025, August 20). Trump Admin to end coverage of gender-affirming care for federal workers. them. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://www.them

When Aid Disappears: How the Big Beautiful Bill Fails Illinois Students

By Katherine Walter

On July 5, 2025

In education

WASHINGTON, DC – JULY 04: U.S. President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, signs the “One, Big Beautiful Bill” Act into law during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on July 04, 2025 in Washington, DC. After weeks of negotiations with Republican holdouts Congress passed the One, Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, President Trump’s signature tax and spending bill. The bill makes permanent President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, increase spending on defense and immigration enforcement and temporarily cut taxes on tips, while cutting funding for Medicaid, food assistance and other social safety net programs. (Photo by Eric Lee/Getty Images)

The recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—what some are calling the “Big Beautiful Bill”—has ushered in one of the most significant and controversial overhauls to higher education funding in recent memory. Signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025, the legislation is being praised in some corners for its tax reforms and streamlined government spending. But beneath the surface, the bill threatens to widen the chasm of educational inequality, especially for low-income students in Illinois and right here in the U-46 school district, where I formerly taught.

As someone who has spent years in education and now watches from the outside with a heavy heart, I’m particularly alarmed by what this bill means for Pell Grants. These federal grants have long served as a foundation for college access among students from working-class and economically marginalized communities. In U-46, where many students are first-generation college-bound and come from families already struggling with inflation and housing costs, Pell Grants have been nothing short of essential.

The Big Beautiful Bill reduces the maximum Pell Grant award by nearly 23%, cutting it from $7,395 to $5,710 (Knott, 2025a). That shortfall is not academic—it’s rent, groceries, textbooks, and transit. Just as troubling are the new restrictions the bill imposes: students must now enroll in at least 15 credit hours to qualify for full aid, up from the previous 12. Additionally, those enrolled less than half-time—often students working jobs to support their families—will no longer be eligible. These changes are not just policy shifts; they are structural barriers that will block many Illinois students from ever setting foot on a college campus.

Illinois’ public colleges and universities have already been under financial strain for years, and state MAP grants, while helpful, are often insufficient to close the gap. For students graduating from U-46 high schools—whether in Elgin, Streamwood, Bartlett, or South Elgin—this federal retrenchment will be felt immediately. Students who were on the edge of affording their first year may now find themselves locked out of higher education altogether.

This is precisely why I launched the Katherine Walter Anthropology Scholarship Fund, hosted on Bold.org. Anthropology—my field of passion—is not often considered a “practical” major by today’s economic standards, yet it offers vital tools for understanding human behavior, culture, and history. In a time when diversity, equity, and inclusion are under attack, we need anthropologists who come from diverse economic and cultural backgrounds more than ever. My scholarship fund is a small but deliberate effort to push back against the erosion of educational access. It is designed to support students pursuing anthropology who demonstrate both academic promise and financial need—particularly those from school districts like U-46 that are too often overlooked in national education debates. You can learn more or contribute directly here: https://bold.org/funds/katherine-walter-anthropology-scholarship-fundraiser/.

This fund is not intended to be a bandage over a deep wound. Rather, it’s a gesture of solidarity with the students I once taught—those who worked double shifts to help at home, who translated school forms for their parents, who stayed late after class to ask about college but worried aloud about the cost. It’s for the ones who won’t benefit from the Big Beautiful Bill but deserve every chance to learn, grow, and contribute to the world.

While the legislation also eliminates subsidized federal student loans and imposes new performance metrics on college programs—denying eligibility to those whose graduates earn less than high school diploma holders—the burden once again falls on students. Especially those pursuing careers in social sciences, education, or the arts, where the monetary payoff may be modest, but the societal value is profound (Knott, 2025b).

If you’re someone who believes in the right to education regardless of zip code or income bracket, I invite you to act. Contribute to the scholarship. Share this message. Start a fund of your own. Because while the Big Beautiful Bill may have passed, its consequences are just beginning to unfold—and we must meet them with action, not silence.

References

Knott, K. (2025a, July 4). ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Means Big Changes for Higher Ed. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/07/04/big-beautiful-bill-means-big-changes-higher-ed

Knott, K. (2025b, July 4). Trump signs ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ into law in White House ceremony. Time. https://time.com/7300177/trump-signs-big-beautiful-bill

Unheard and Unrepresented: The TikTok Ban and America’s Youth

By Katherine Walter

On June 17, 2025

In democratic participation

Image: ChatGPT

TikTok, the wildly popular video-sharing platform with more than 150 million American users, is once again under threat of a nationwide ban unless former President Donald Trump—now in office again—extends the deadline requiring its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest. While the national security rationale remains a central talking point, the deeper issue is being overlooked: the demographic most impacted by this ban—American youth under 18—has no political representation and no say in this decision. In a democratic society, such a disconnect between governance and those governed raises serious ethical and structural concerns.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), signed into law by President Biden in April 2024, mandates ByteDance to sell TikTok’s U.S. operations or face a ban by January 19, 2025. This law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in TikTok v. Garland, reinforcing the government’s authority to act on national security grounds (Associated Press, 2025). But enforcement of the ban has been repeatedly delayed by President Trump through executive orders—ostensibly to allow for negotiations over a U.S. buyout of the platform (Allyn & Kim, 2025a).

What’s most troubling is how this entire debate—playing out in congressional hearings, courtrooms, and campaign rallies—has occurred without the inclusion or input of those most affected: young people. Teenagers make up a disproportionately large share of TikTok users, yet their opinions, interests, and creative spaces are being weighed and possibly erased by people they cannot elect, pressure, or even speak to.

Recent polling shows the sharp generational divide on this issue. According to Pew Research Center (McClain, 2023), only 18% of teens support a TikTok ban, in contrast with 38% of adults. Yet because minors cannot vote, run for office, or make financial contributions to campaigns, their overwhelming opposition to a ban goes unheard. The structure of the U.S. political system excludes them from direct participation, allowing their interests to be ignored in the name of protection.

This is not the first time youth culture has been targeted under the guise of national security or moral panic. In the 1950s, comic books were accused of corrupting children’s minds, leading to the creation of the Comics Code Authority, which gutted much of the medium’s artistic vitality (Reynolds, 1992). In the 1980s, Dungeons & Dragons was falsely linked to Satanism and suicide. Explicit music in the 1990s brought about parental advisory stickers and congressional hearings, though few long-term effects on youth behavior were ever substantiated. Time and again, American policy has leaned toward paternalistic control over genuine youth inclusion—and TikTok is only the latest chapter in this pattern.

Of course, concerns about data collection by a Chinese-owned company should not be dismissed. TikTok collects biometric identifiers, geolocation data, browsing history, and more. However, as Fung (2023) of CNN reports, there is no public evidence that this data has been shared with the Chinese government. Many social media platforms based in the U.S. collect similar or even more invasive information. If the core issue is data privacy, then comprehensive tech regulation—not selective banning—would be the more consistent and democratic solution.

Other democratic nations have pursued more measured responses. European governments have banned TikTok from official devices and demanded stricter privacy guarantees—but they have not banned it entirely from public use (Allyn, 2025). These more proportionate policies allow youth culture to continue while addressing national concerns with oversight and regulation. The U.S., on the other hand, is preparing to take the most drastic possible action: a nationwide removal of an app integral to teenage expression, identity, and even income.

TikTok is not just a platform for memes and dances. It is a digital public square for many young people. It’s where they express creativity, share political ideas, discover new music, form friendships, and build audiences. For some, it is a crucial income source through brand deals and affiliate links. Shuttering TikTok removes not just an app but an ecosystem of youth culture—without even giving that generation a seat at the table.

There are alternatives to an outright ban. The RESTRICT Act gives the Commerce Department the ability to monitor and restrict apps controlled by foreign adversaries, without defaulting to prohibition. Proposals such as requiring data localization, implementing third-party audits, or placing restrictions only on government devices would achieve better balance between security and liberty. More radically, policymakers could establish formal youth advisory boards to provide input on cultural and digital policy.

In a democratic society, representation is fundamental. And yet, American teens remain politically invisible. Their cultural spaces are scrutinized, regulated, or shut down by adults who claim to act in their best interest—but without ever asking what those interests actually are. To ban TikTok without youth input is to legislate without listening. It is a contradiction of democratic ideals.

The debate over TikTok is not simply about data or geopolitics—it is about who gets to be heard. Until young people are seen as full participants in the democratic process, decisions like these will continue to reflect not just national interests, but generational neglect. We must do better. Not only because TikTok matters—but because youth voices matter.

References

Allyn, B. (2025, April 4). Trump issues another TikTok ban extension. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/04/nx-s1-5347418/trump-tiktok-second-ban-delay

Allyn, B., & Kim, J. (2025a, January 18). Trump says he’ll likely give TikTok a 90-day extension. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/18/nx-s1-5266883/trump-tiktok-delay-ban

Allyn, B., & Kim, J. (2025b, January 19). TikTok is back online in the U.S., following Trump’s promise to pause the ban. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/19/nx-s1-5267568/tiktok-back-online

Associated Press. (2025, January 17). Supreme Court seems likely to uphold a federal law that could force TikTok to shut down on Jan. 19. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-supreme-court-national-security

Fung, B. (2023, March 21). Lawmakers say TikTok is a national security threat, but evidence remains unclear. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/21/tech/tiktok-security/index.html

McClain, C. (2023, December 11). A declining share of adults, and few teens, support a U.S. TikTok ban. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/11/a-declining-share-of-adults-and-few-teens-support-a-us-tiktok-ban/

Reynolds, R. (1992). Superheroes: A modern mythology. University Press of Mississippi.