Women’s History Month is celebrated every March to honor the important contributions of women from the past and present in American history, culture and society. Key figures that are often highlighted during Women’s History Month include Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who were the primary leaders in the fight for equal rights for women, Amelia Earhart, who was the one of the world’s first female pilots, Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her bus seat for a white man, sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and Marie Curie, scientist and the first woman to win a Nobel Peace Prize. 

Women’s History Month originally began in 1978 as a weeklong local celebration in Santa Rosa, California, organized by the Education Task Force of the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women. The celebration then spread across the country as other communities began to hold their own Women’s History Week celebrations. The celebration eventually received national recognition from President Jimmy Carter in February 1980, when he issued the first Presidential Proclamation declaring the Week of March 8th as National Women’s History Week. The following presidents continued to proclaim National Women’s History Week every March until 1987, when Congress passed a law designating March as “Women’s History Month.” Additional resolutions were passed from 1988 to 1994 authorizing the President to issue annual proclamations designating March as Women’s History Month. This tradition has since continued, making 2026 the 40th anniversary of Women’s History Month.

Since the first Women’s History Week in 1978, other countries have joined the United States in honoring women and their contribution to history and culture, including Canada and Australia. The National Women’s History Alliance chooses a theme each year for Women’s History Week. The 2026 theme is Leading the Change: Women Shaping a Sustainable Future, highlighting women who are driving innovation and systemic change across environmental, economic, and social sectors, fostering long-term sustainability and equity for people and the planet. Themes from the past have included the 2025 theme Moving Forward Together! Women Educating & Inspiring Generations which celebrated the collective power and influence of women and the 2024 theme Invest in Women: Accelerate Progress which focused on gender equality as a human rights issue. Beyond the themes, Women’s History Month represents the correction of underrepresentation of and discrimination towards women while also celebrating their many achievements and impact on the world. 

About Post Author

Hania Shafqat '27 Janvi Singh '27

mliddle@mlschools.org

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %

Robert Bob Weir, born October 16, 1947 in San Francisco, California, passed away on January 10th, 2026. Now his name, at least in this generation, may seem like any other ordinary name, but what if I were to tell you that Bob Weir is arguably one of the most influential musicians of all time, on the same level of Miles Davis, Michael Jackson, and those alike?

Early Life

Bob Weir did not have an easy start in life, his childhood, to describe it in a word, was turbulent. Weir became an orphan as an infant before being quickly being adopted by a family out of Atherton, California: an extremely wealthy neighborhood in the San Francisco Bay area. Unfortunately, he was diagnosed with dyslexia early into his childhood, leading to academic struggles and often behavioral issues, and before he had turned 16, he had already been expelled from five different schools. Yet, behind the struggles with academics and behavior, he found a sanctuary in music. He developed an early interest in folk and blues, drawing heavy inspiration from artists across multiple genres of music, including McCoy Turner, a Jazz Pianist with the John Coltrane Quartet, and Reverend Gary Davis, a well-acclaimed Blues guitarist and gospel singer.

The Formation of The Grateful Dead

In 1963, at age 16, Bob Weir completely abandoned the traditional lifestyle in the pursuit of becoming a full-time musician. At this point, he had been expelled from multiple prep schools, skipping formal education entirely, and spending the majority of his days in Dana Morgan’s Music Store in Palo Alto, where local musicians often congregated and performed together. This is where he met his future co-star, Jerry Garcia. Jerry Garcia, like Bob Weir, was born in San Francisco, California, and found refuge in music partly because of his medical condition (Polio). They both enjoyed the same music, and more importantly, both shared the dream of living the rockstar life. Weir and Garcia quickly began collaborating in music festivals before founding The Grateful Dead in 1965, symbolizing the beginning of a new era in music.

The Grateful Dead & Dead and Company

Weir and The Grateful Dead quickly took over the nation, with their new sound combining folk, country, and jazz took the hearts of millions within a few short years. Songs like “Dark Star” and “Turn On Your Lovelight” sold millions and before you even knew it they were touring across the country, performing to thousands and living that rockstar life they had dreamt of as teenagers. 

The Grateful Dead symbolized freedom, and living to the fullest, denying negative energy and only living with best intentions. And by following this motto, they rocked the 70s, again selling millions of records, revolutionizing music with their twist on rock and disco, and playing hundreds of shows per year. However, they fell as quickly as they rose. While The Grateful Dead symbolized freedom and unity through music, they also symbolized drug use, and the downfall of the band heavily stemming from that drug abuse. 

While Bob Weir was known to typically avoid heavy drug use, his bandmates did not see eye-to-eye with him. Jerry Garcia quickly drew health concerns, and combined with the exhaustive touring, these factors killed their momentum and motivation. In July of 1995, the band unofficially stopped touring. A month later Jerry Garcia, the lead guitarist and singer, tragically overdosed and passed away. Although the band never formally disbanded, Jerry Garcia’s passing unofficially marked the end of The Grateful Dead, ending an unprecedented era of music. 

Within the year, Bob Weir formed a new band named RatDog, that focused on reinterpretations of Grateful Dead material, which lasted a quite long time despite losing such a valuable piece of the band in Jerry Garcia. Yet, Bob Weir prevailed. By 1999, he married Natasha Münter and had two daughters, and embraced a healthier lifestyle through surfing and exercise. He had witnessed Jerry Garcia’s struggle with fitness and drugs and vowed to never repeat them.

By 2015, though the band had stopped touring as The Grateful Dead, Weir and the core members of the band formed a new group: Dead and Company. The band included Bob Weir and other core members of The Grateful Dead, but also some new faces like John Mayer, Oteil Burbridge, and Jeff Chimenti. Although The Grateful Dead had long been done touring up to this point, the mission with Dead and Company was to build on the Grateful Dead legacy by reintroducing their music, but this time, to a completely new audience and generation. 

While the band began touring in 2017 with only one tour per year (excluding 2020), their legacy endured. With Dead and Company, Bob Weir had finally found a peaceful balance between performing and his personal life. He went from 200 shows per year with The Grateful Dead to around 30 per year with Dead and Company, and although core members like Bill Kreutzmann eventually leaned away from playing with the band, Bob Weir continued to tour and build on the Grateful Dead’s legacy, until 2023 when Dead and Company announced their final tour.

Life After Music

After The Grateful Dead unofficially disbanded in 1995, Bob Weir shifted his priorities. He strayed away from performing above all else, but rather on health and fitness. While The Grateful Dead embodied drug-use, Bob Weir stayed avoidant of drugs, understanding the lethal consequences of not being careful. 

After 1995, he promoted fitness and became a symbol of recovery, showing that anyone could outlive addiction, eventually even speaking out about discipline and mindfulness. He served as a beacon of hope for society, a role that he consistently maintained throughout his life.

Bob Weir evangelized showing up and caring for the body, serving as a reminder for people what happens when drug use is taken too far. Although the band has been disbanded for over 30 years now, their legacy endures, and so does Bob Weir’s. Bob Weir’s legacy did not end with his passing, it continues through music, values, and culture he helped create. 

From a troubled youth to national rockstar, Bob Weir embodies the comeback story. As the steward of The Grateful Dead, Weir made it his top priority to carry the band’s spirit into new generations through Dead and Company while modeling balance, health, and resilience. Bob Weir may be gone in death, but the music is what endures, the community he unites, and the hope he inspires.

About Post Author

Sam Bruderle '27

mliddle@mlschools.org

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %

If you’re on TikTok or Instagram, there’s a decent chance you’ve heard of Duolingo. Duolingo is a language-learning platform with courses in 43 languages, and it is one of the most popular educational apps. This is partly because of the streak feature, as many have streaks lasting over a year on Duolingo. The company also has a significant social media presence, centered around their mascot, Duo the Owl. They often follow trends and cater to a primarily Gen Z audience. This has allowed them to stay relevant and have a large fan base.

On April 28, Duolingo shared an all-hands email from CEO Luis von Ahn stating that the company would shift to an “AI first” approach, meaning that they would be prioritizing AI over their workforce. However, they claimed that Duolingo would “remain a company that cares deeply about its employees.” Ahn stated that using AI would help the company “get closer to their mission” and boost their productivity. 

As a result of this announcement, the company began receiving major backlash online, with many people deleting the app and criticizing Duolingo for using AI. Many argued that replacing human language experts with AI tools would impact the quality of learning on the app, as AI is known to have issues with mistranslation and cultural insensitivity. 

Despite the backlash, Duolingo continued to justify their shift to AI. In a follow-up post on May 6, the company reiterated their commitment to “innovation through AI.” On social media, the Duolingo account privatized their videos and removed their profile picture. This caused even more backlash online, with people stating that this change was over-dramatic, embarrassing, and a tactic to keep the company in relevance. 

It’s unclear what the long-term impacts on the company will be; however, as of now, the response is overwhelmingly negative. The scandal has raised further questions about AI in education and companies using AI to replace their employees.

About Post Author

Hania Shafqat ('27)

mliddle@mlschools.org

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

1 50 %

Surprise

1 50 %

Following Trump’s inauguration, Republicans immediately revered his commitment to what he claimed to be a resurgence of free speech. “And I have stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America. It’s back,” Trump said in an address to Congress on March 4th. However, in contrast to his claims, his administration has seemingly cracked down on how political dissidents utilize their 1st Amendment right.

Palestine Protests on College Campuses

Alongside a divisive conflict, protests against the war in Gaza are now under more scrutiny than ever. Students on college campuses, especially international students, have received the brunt of the Trump administration’s influence. Under the guise of protecting national security, officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio have called for the removal of those they consider to be threats to the safety of the U.S. 

“Every one of them I find, we’re going to kick them out,” Rubio said on March 27 in regards to what he deemed “…going beyond demonstration. They are going and they are creating a ruckus. They are creating riots, basically, on campus.” True to his statements, Rubio has revoked upwards of 300 visas since January, many of these visas being held by students. Since then, he has expanded his search to include the social media of prospecting students, ordering diplomats to review posts of individuals who, as reported by the New York Times, “…[are] suspected of having terrorist ties or sympathies; who [have] a student or exchange visa between Oct. 7, 2023, and Aug. 31, 2024; or who [have] had a visa terminated since that October date.” These parameters suggest a desire to reject applicants who align themselves against Israel’s actions in the Middle East conflict.

According to surveys by Intelligent.com, Generation Lab/Axios, and Newsweek/College Pulse, support for pro-Palestine protests on college campuses is as high as 65% among students. Taking into account the U.S.’s longstanding support for Israel, it is no surprise that conservative politicians are concerned with growing dissent on college campuses. Actions against these protestors, however, have also garnered concern over the validity of deporting and revoking the visas of those who stand in ideological opposition to the Trump administration. In late March, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish international student, was taken into custody after being targeted by a right-wing group due to her opinion essay criticizing the university’s response to pro-Palestinian demands; then, in a more recent instance, Mohsen Mahdawi, a legal permanent resident, was detained by ICE after turning up to what he was told would be an interview related to his naturalization. Receiving the most national coverage, though, is Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident who was arrested after helping lead protests for Gaza on the campus of Columbia University.

After moving to the U.S. in 2022, Khalil earned a master’s degree at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and has since then married Noor Abdalla, an American citizen. Following his involvement in the protests — often acting as a mediator between the heads of the university and students who attended the protests — he has been placed under the public eye, facing judgment from both the Trump administration and pro-Israel activists. Some Jewish students, as a result of the protests’ increasing intensity, reported feeling unsafe and uncomfortable around the anti-Zionist sentiment. These complaints did not fall upon deaf ears; Republican officials were quick to deride the protests as anti-Semitic and Columbia University as “out of control”. Khalil, in specificity, had been called out for stating that “Israel and their propaganda always find something to attack,” adding, “They — we — have tried armed resistance, which is, again, legitimate under international law, but Israel calls it terrorism.” Despite this, however, his arrest cited no specific cause as to why he was being detained; Secretary Rubio has instead justified his detention by referring to a rarely used statute from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, allowing the Secretary of State to deport anyone who “…would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” In a two-page memo, Rubio also accused Khalil of participating in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities.”

The debate comes with the shaky legality under which Khalil is facing deportation. The law mentioned above, used as rationale by Marco Rubio, has, succeeding the Cold War, been altered to protect “beliefs, statements, or associations” that are “lawful within the United States.” What constitutes Khalil’s speech and activities as “compromis[ing to] a compelling United States foreign policy interest” — the revised requirements for deportation proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952? Within the memo, Rubio argues that “These determinations are based on information provided by the DHS/ICE/HSI regarding the participation and roles of Khalil in antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.” Presumably, because the U.S. has maintained close ties with Israel, Rubio likely views Khalil as a danger to this alliance. Others, however, see his detention as unjust and a breach of his First Amendment rights. “This has the appearance of a retaliatory action against someone who expressed an opinion the Trump administration didn’t like,” stated Camille Mackler, the founder of a New York coalition for legal service providers for immigrants. Consequently, Khalil’s detention remains controversial — his pending “deportable” status only adding to uncertainty regarding not only his future, but the future of every immigrant’s right to free speech.

Securitization Theory

Imagine a closed box. The box, in and of itself, is likely not dangerous. But imagine there is someone in your ear, telling you that there is something threatening inside. Their warnings increase in urgency as they begin to relay to you further information: that the box will open and whatever is in the box will be released in the next few minutes. They insist that you give them the box to keep you out of harm’s way, and panicked, you do so. That unknown person has made a securitizing move, you, as the audience, have agreed to it, and the box has now been securitized. Under the premise of the security threat that someone has constructed, they have convinced you to give up the box. This is the basis of what is called securitization theory.

Challenging traditional approaches to security, securitization theory asserts that issues are not threatening by nature, but are constructed as security issues. This is achieved through the rhetoric surrounding the problem; for instance, labelling an item as “menacing” and “alarming.” Using the example of the box, the box itself was not a threat—only after it was described as an imminent danger did it become one. The securitization of an issue or item legitimizes drastic action to address it. The box is confiscated to neutralize a threat, a government declares martial law to defend from terrorists, hundreds are imprisoned with no due process to curb the threat of an “enemy within quickly.” Securitization creates a “politics of fear,” in which actors—often, the government—incite mass fear among the general population against a certain someone or something.

For instance, America’s response to the September 11th attacks is demonstrative of securitization. Following 9/11, the Bush administration declared the U.S. “a nation at war,” framing terrorism as not a crime, but an existential threat to civilization. Bush himself declared, “We cannot wait for the final proof … in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Under this framing, terrorism became an all-encompassing, imminent threat that rose above and suspended normal politics. Relying on the widespread hysteria that overtook the nation and legitimizing their actions by asserting the exceptionality of the threat, the U.S. government pushed out the PATRIOT Act, which greatly expanded surveillance of American citizens. The securitization of 9/11 and terrorism also justified the War on Terror and conflated immigration with terrorism, with long-lasting consequences. Today, the precedent of global military intervention for the sake of safety established by the War on Terror has left lasting scars on human rights, allowing “arbitrary detentions and enforced disappearances” around the world. For instance, in exchange for counterterrorism cooperation, the U.S. allowed human rights violations by countries such as Egypt, Morocco, and Jordan under a state of emergency. In Egypt, over ten thousand people were held without a fair trial. Under the pretense of counterterrorism, China and Russia both legitimize their actions against political opposition, activists, and minorities, policies unrelated to the terrorist attack witnessed by Americans on September 11th. Domestically, anti-Muslim sentiment and disproven claims by politicians that terrorists simply “slipped across the border” contributed to the growing public push for harsh migration control to counter the threat of Islamist terrorist groups entering the country. Overall, terrorism, Dr. James Walsh explains, acts as a moral panic because it is an invisible enemy that can never be defeated. By exploiting public anxiety of future devastation and referring to “shadowy threats and worst-case scenarios,” public concern is manipulated for political purposes, and the law is circumvented. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben describes this as the “state of exception.” Because terrorism is such a paramount danger, the state must make exceptions. Drastic measures ensure that certain groups are scapegoated, and attention is directed away from other pressing issues, as terrorism becomes the only thing in people’s minds. For instance, between 1969 and 2013, 5755 Americans died in terrorist attacks, a figure that accounts for domestic and international casualties. But in just 2013 alone, 33636 Americans died from domestic gun violence. The framing of terrorism as an existential threat, and the trillions of dollars spent on homeland security, are quite disproportionate given the death toll of terrorism compared to other, “less pressing” issues. Still, its framing is what makes the difference and pushes terrorism to priority #1.

Some argue that securitization is a necessary response to threats. While it is not harmful to recognize threats and emphasize their importance, one of the main drawbacks of securitization lies in its solvency. The rhetoric surrounding terrorism and border security during the 2024 election cycle, for instance, emphasized the imminent threat of terrorist groups, such as ISIS, entering the U.S. through a poorly enforced southern border, with some government officials warning, following the apprehension of ISIS members, that an attack would occur in the next few months. In response, politicians like Donald Trump made border security the centerpiece of their campaigns to protect U.S. citizens from the shadowy threat of another terror attack. This security approach, fueled by the securitization of migration and the southern border, then failed to effectively address terrorism. Twice as long as the southern border, a “safer, easier path” into the country, and a point of entry that has fallen off the radar of politicians, the CBP reports that the northern border between the U.S. and Canada was responsible for 86% of terrorist encounters in 2023. Securitization may have directed public attention to the threat of terrorists and lackluster border enforcement, but the framing of the southern border as the entry point for terrorists may have actually contributed to a focus tradeoff and therefore, weak enforcement in the north. 

With this new understanding of securitization theory, we can apply it to the Trump administration’s crackdown on free speech across college campuses. In response to the widespread pro-Palestine protests, President Trump announced on Truth Social that, “We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it,” saying that Mahmoud Khalil’s arrest is “the first arrest of many to come.” In the same manner, Marco Rubio posted on Twitter that he would be “revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported,” rhetoric that securitizes pro-Palestine protests and framed the wider support for Palestine as support for terrorism. The legislation that followed built upon this framing to justify the suppression of these protests. However, it’s essential to realize that opposition to the protests was not partisan. President Biden also heavily criticized the protests, and although he promised to uphold the tradition of peaceful protest, oversaw policies cracking down on pro-Palestine demonstrators, including the reauthorization of Section 702, an infamous mass surveillance law from the post 9/11 era that justified the Bush administration’s mass surveillance program that gathered intelligence on Americans abroad but ultimately swept into all Americans’ private communications. In the following years, the government also attempted to use Section 702 intelligence against journalists and Black Lives Matter protestors. Primarily due to the narrative that it was necessary to surveil pro-Palestine protests, Section 702 was reauthorized in April of 2024, with Congress failing to add a warrant requirement and greatly expanding the scope of surveillance. This change details that any “service provider with access to equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store wire or electronic communications” must assist with Section 702 surveillance. This amendment could cover universities and potentially any U.S. business providing WiFi to their customers. The Biden administration’s action on this issue, therefore, may have been a significant factor in why many supporters of Palestine were so unenthused about the presidential campaign of his Vice President Kamala Harris—after all, in terms of cracking down on protestors, Republicans and Democrats seemed aligned for once, in the worst way.

One must recognize that no matter how imminent a security threat may seem, it should not justify the erosion of basic civil liberties. It should not legitimize government overreach, because as the War on Terror has shown us, the backslide does not end. The politics of fear that securitization creates imposes a long-lasting sense of anxiety on the public and sets off a feedback loop of a threat, a policy to address it, and a new threat. In the case of free speech, where can the line be drawn? If “terrorism” is a valid justification for rolling back civil liberties, where do things end? What speech constitutes terrorism? If due process and civil liberties are only guaranteed to citizens, how do we prove that someone is a citizen, and is therefore entitled to civil liberties, without due process?

About Post Author

Grace Fu ('26) and Laura Blandon ('26)

mliddle@mlschools.org

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

1 100 %

“RFK must be disposed of like his brother was.” 

“RFK must die.”

“My determination to eliminate RFK is becoming more of an unshakable obsession.”

Those were some of the statements Sirhan made to his garbage collector, policemen, and other detectives on the case for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. 

From January to March, President Trump released upwards of ten thousand files regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. He has already ordered the release of MLK’s assassination files as well. Trump is using this as a way to push his promise of maximum transparency. Most people think the documents will not reveal any big developments.

Robert Francis Kennedy

Robert Francis Kennedy was born on November 20, 1925, and assassinated on June 6, 1968. He is the brother of former presidents John F. Kennedy and Ted Kennedy. He served as the U.S. Attorney General (1961–1964): Under his brother JFK and then under Lyndon B. Johnson. 

He was tough on organized crime and a strong supporter of the civil rights movement. He was also a U.S. Senator from New York (1965–1968) and advocated for social justice, anti-poverty programs, and civil rights.

In a new file, a 1968 memo was found of an FBI report supposedly saying that Sirhan had fallen from a horse. After that incident, his family reported that a change had fallen upon him. Additionally, new reports also find that he frequently conversed about his plans with people who were close to him, including a garbage collector. The garbageman told Sirhan that he was planning on voting for RFK because of his plans to help Black people. Sirhan responded that he didn’t agree (in more animated words).

The administration hopes that by releasing the files, more people can figure out exactly what had happened. For example, conspiracies about how Sirhan did not act alone, including one about a woman in a polka-dot dress shouting she killed RFK, are still unanswered. 

Robert Kennedy Jr., the current United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, has supported Sirhan’s request for parole. He backs the claim that Sirhan did not act alone.

John F. Kennedy

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was born on May 29, 1917, and was assassinated on November 22, 1963. He was the 35th President of the United States (1961–1963) which made him the youngest elected president and the first Catholic president. 

He was also a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts (1953–1960) who gained national recognition and built his platform before running for president.

While the files released did not tell anything notable about who killed JFK (most experts believe it is still Lee Harvey Oswald). However, a news article from the Harvard Gazette finds that the 77,000 pages declassified by the Trump administration give insight into what was going on with the CIA during things like the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs Invasion, etc. For example, the CIA was involved in interfering with elections not only in Latin America but in Finland as well. The documents show that over 40-50% of the entire government was working with the CIA in some way.

Additionally, the pages also tell a story of just how involved Cuban exiles were in military ploys like Operation Mongoose (an attempt to overthrow Castro). There were over 14 Cuban agents in the US government and many were on high payrolls.

Like RFK, there are lots of questions left unanswered. Why was Oswald in Mexico City before then? How connected was Oswald with the USSR? Some of these questions have created an environment ripe for conspiracy theories. Hopefully, they will get answered in the coming months.

About Post Author

Ethan Wu ('27)

mliddle@mlschools.org

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %

At 7 p.m. on March 31st, 2025, Cory Booker began what would be known as the longest recorded speech in Senate history. Lasting 25 hours and 5 minutes, he surpassed Strom Thurmond’s 24 hours and 18-minute filibuster from 1957 fighting against the Civil Rights Act. His speech proved more than just a competition of endurance; it was a protest to the pressing political status the US government has created. 

Booker stood up with the “…intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as [he is] physically able.” This allowed him to immediately capture an audience, drawing more eyes to the issue. He spoke on the threats to democracy, the traits of our leaders, and the unfair treatment they enact. While the length of his speech drew people in, standing up for the people’s rights, fighting corruption, and calling for a change kept many supporters along for the ride. 

Booker’s speech looked to the future, ensuring the people of tomorrow can have a government that supports all of its people – not just the individuals at the top of society. With over 1,600 pages prepared, he encouraged other officials and those in power to take action as well. He spoke with them morally and empathetically, sharing his personal experiences and centering back on his human connections. 

Booker’s speech proved its importance as each of the 25 hours passed. He shined a flawed reflection of the Senate straight back to them. He reminds his fellow politicians of the oath they swore to uphold and to think carefully about how that has been followed. 

Booker’s filibuster became a turning point, sparking a storm on social media and calling attention to the important matter, reminding Americans that sometimes the most patriotic act is speaking up for what you know is right. 

About Post Author

Avery Lakoff ('26)

mliddle@mlschools.org

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %

In the age of rapid medical advancement, developing life-saving treatments for all should be a global priority. Yet, for millions in low-income countries, access to these treatments—and even the continued development of viable drugs—remains distant. While the issue of drug affordability and availability is largely well known, the root cause goes unnoticed. Factors such as corporate interests, economic barriers, and global inequities present massive hurdles for poorer nations in both creating and accessing new medications.

Drug development is often hailed as one of the most important advancements, but it is an incredibly complex process that is very time-consuming and expensive. As an impatient and restless student who wants to develop drugs, learning that it can take at least 10–15 years and $2.6 billion to get one drug to market made me question one of my most personal goals. For people living in high-income countries, this seems like an inevitable hurdle to overcome. In fact, it’s seen as one worth the price. But for those in low-income countries, where these treatments are desperately needed, access to even basic medication is out of reach. This problem is not simply one of distribution. The system itself—how drugs are discovered, developed, and priced—is all stacked against impoverished countries.

Corporate Control

One of the biggest obstacles in drug development is the control that multinational pharma companies have over the process. These corporations essentially decide which diseases are prioritized for drug R&D. Unfortunately, their decisions are largely driven by profit. A lot of the world’s pharmaceutical R&D goes toward diseases affecting high-income countries, like cancer and heart disease, because they promise bigger financial returns. Meanwhile, diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and other tropical diseases that affect millions in lower-income countries are ignored. This is because they have low market potential. Lower-income countries cannot afford expensive treatments, so companies tend to overlook

them.

This is often referred to as the 10/90 gap—only 10% of global health research funding is spent on diseases that affect 90% of the world’s population. As The Lancet puts it, “The industry’s profit-driven model leaves low-income countries vulnerable, prioritizing research for lucrative markets over global health needs.”

Economic Barriers

Even when low-income countries want to participate in drug development, the economic barriers are staggering. The cost of developing a single new drug is astronomically high—$2.6 billion, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. It’s not just about affording the research; these countries often don’t have the infrastructure needed to support it. Laboratories, trained personnel, and regulatory systems—all the things that make drug development possible—are often lacking. The World Health Organization highlights this problem, stating, “Low- and middle-income countries lack the resources and infrastructure to support early stages of drug research and development, leaving them reliant on external aid.”

This leads to a frustrating cycle where low-income countries depend on donations or external help from wealthier nations and organizations, but these solutions are short-term. There’s little investment in building up these countries’ capacities to develop and produce drugs themselves. A major part of the problem is that low-income countries spend far less on research and development—often less than 1% of their GDP, compared to a global average of 2.4%.

However, it’s worth noting that low-income countries do have some advantages when it comes to clinical trials. The global burden of disease is higher in these regions, meaning there are often faster rates of patient recruitment for clinical trials compared to high-income countries, where diseases are less prevalent. Additionally, labor costs in low-income regions are lower, which can lead to potential cost savings during the trial phases. But these advantages don’t outweigh the overwhelming barriers created by a lack of infrastructure and funding.

Intellectual Property Laws and Access to Affordable Medications

Even if low-income countries were able to develop their own drugs, the intellectual property system creates a significant roadblock. Pharmaceutical companies are granted patents on new drugs, giving them exclusive rights to sell the product—often at extremely high prices—for up to 20 years. This means that low-income countries can’t make or import cheaper, generic versions of life-saving drugs until the patents expire, namely under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). This agreement, which governs patents for pharmaceutical products, often results in higher drug prices due to extended monopolies. Although TRIPS includes flexibilities such as compulsory licensing—which allows governments to bypass patents in health emergencies—and parallel imports—which enable the resale of medicines purchased at lower prices in other countries—these mechanisms are difficult for low-income countries to implement. The barriers come from legal complexities, external pressures, and the lack of domestic production capacity in many low- and middle-income regions.

James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, asserts that this system shuts out the poorest countries: “Patents allow pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices, locking out millions from accessing affordable treatments” (Love, 2018). While there are provisions for compulsory licensing—which would allow countries to produce generic drugs during public health crises—these provisions are incredibly hard to enact. When Thailand issued compulsory licenses for HIV/AIDS medications in 2007, it faced intense backlash from pharmaceutical companies, who even threatened legal action (Ford, 2018). This power imbalance makes it difficult for low-income countries to prioritize public health over corporate profits.

Global Health Governance and the Role of Wealthier Nations

The barriers to drug development are compounded by the lack of representation that low-income countries have in global health governance. Decisions on global health priorities are often dominated by high-income nations that prioritize their own people over others. According to a study in Global Health Governance, “Global health priorities are often set by wealthy donor countries, leaving the health needs of low-income regions marginalized” (Yamey & Ooms, 2019). This imbalance means that diseases affecting poorer nations are underfunded as well as under-researched.

Even international aid and philanthropy, while helpful, can’t fix the root issue. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested billions of dollars in tackling diseases like malaria and tuberculosis in low-income regions, but that’s still not enough to address the broader problem. Professor Amir Attaran argues, “Philanthropy can’t replace the need for local capacity. True progress will come when these countries are empowered to develop their own drug R&D systems” (Attaran, 2020).

What Needs to Change

To fix the massive disparities in drug development and access, we need to take a multi-faceted approach. Firstly, pharmaceutical companies should be incentivized to invest more in diseases that disproportionately affect low-income countries. This could be done through tax credits, subsidies, or public-private partnerships that focus on neglected diseases. Second, the global community must invest in building up scientific infrastructure in these poorer regions. According to the WHO, “Strengthening research capacity in low-income countries is crucial for developing sustainable solutions to their public health challenges.” By funding education, establishing research institutions, and improving healthcare systems, we can help low-income countries take control of their own drug development and not be forced to pay for unnecessarily expensive treatments from Western corporations. Finally, we need to reform the global IP system. It’s important to strike a balance between protecting innovation and ensuring that life-saving treatments are accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford them. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) suggests revising international trade laws to allow for greater flexibility in producing generic drugs when public health is at stake.

A Global Responsibility

As someone who cares deeply about global health, I find it impossible to ignore the glaring inequalities in drug development. Low-income countries shouldn’t have to wait decades for access to life-saving treatments that are available in wealthier nations. Addressing the corporate, economic, and legal barriers that stand in the way of drug development in these regions is not only a matter of ethics but also of justice. Everyone deserves the chance to access the treatments they need—regardless of where they live!

About Post Author

Avni Kaushal ('26)

mliddle@mlschools.org

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %

Overview

From powerful government officials to underpaid laborers, immigrants exist in every level of America. Whether it’s cooking delicious, authentic food in restaurants; taking care of your lawn, roof, and cars; or cleaning your house; they are essential. Recently, however, there has been an increased stigma against these individuals that are the backbone of American society. With the Trump administration’s emphasis on the mass deportation of these laborers, increasingly hostile ICE raids in schools, houses, work, and other private places are infringing on the safety of not only undocumented immigrants and turning America into a hostile country for the entire Latino community. Since the beginning of the decade, immigration to America has drastically increased. This increase is often attributed to former president Biden’s more lenient border policies. From 2020 to 2023, over 2 million have immigrated to the US per year. These include the 60% who have entered illegally. 

The reasons for immigrating vary; in most cases, it is to flee violence and instability in their home country. Over the past few years, immigration worldwide has seen an influx of Venezuelan immigrants, with the US receiving just 260,000 of the 7.7 million. The turmoil these citizens seek to escape is reflected across a majority of the countries that the US receives immigrants from, including Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Ukraine. As humanitarian crises continue to multiply throughout the globe, so will the levels of immigration rates, as long as America continues to provide refuge.

Besides the immigrants who arrive here seeking a safe haven, many view the “land of opportunity” to live up to its name. In an interview with the New York Times, Laura, a Rio Grande Valley resident with limited legal status, stated that she “vividly remembers the morning many years ago when her mother told them she wanted to offer them a better life than the one they had in Matamoros, Mexico.” This is the case for many families, especially ones in Latin America. When considering proximity, it is not shocking that about half of all immigrants from 1965 to 2023 have been Latino. Of those who enter the US, the underlying sentiment remains: “We do this out of need, not because we want to, and that is it.” The previous statement, made by a Peruvian man who attempted jumping over the border, mirrors others’ desperation: “Going back to Haiti means going back to death,” as stated by Rose Joseph, another migrant. Despite their struggle, these sentiments do not seem to sway the opinions of steadfast Republican legislators.

What Are Trump’s Policies?

Over many years in the public eye, Trump and his advisors have been adamant regarding their anti-immigrant rhetoric, being extremely open with their distaste for “illegals.”

In opposition to Biden’s border policies, Trump has slammed down with an iron fist since day one. Within an hour of his inauguration, CBP One—an app that allowed migrants to schedule appointments to legally enter the US—was shut down, cancelling all existing appointments. Not only did this devastate people looking for a better life in America, but it brought disdain to Democrats who were in support of this app. Implemented by the Biden Administration, the app is attributed to the 70% decrease in Border Patrol apprehensions along the southwest border during 2024. The slashing of this program reflects the real intentions of the Trump administration: they don’t want to make legal immigration easier, nor do they want to grant citizenship to immigrants already contributing to America.

Stereotypes Around the Undocumented

The media often portrays illegal immigrants as dangerous criminals. Some of the most infamous rhetoric warns that they “brutally slaughter” American citizens with the most popular story being the murder of Laken Riley. 

My heart goes out to the family and friends of this young woman, who lost her life at 35 years of age–but my heart also goes out to the families of the 37 people who lose their life in drunk driving incidents every day. My heart goes out to Candi Miller, Amber Thurman, Josseli Barnica, and Nevaeh Crain who lost their life because of extreme abortion bans that denied them emergency care. With this said, these stories aren’t nearly as publicized as Laken Riley.

 It is pure hypocrisy to condemn immigrants on the basis of safety and to not provide the same amount of advocacy for abortion bans, gun restrictions, and alcohol regulations. The most ironic thing is that undocumented immigrants aren’t nearly as dangerous as they’re advertised. In fact, as the foreign-born population increases, the rate of murder actually decreases.

Moreover, American-born citizens are proportionally over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. Stigma around immigrants need to be addressed over the media and negative stereotypes against them need to be detested. “Illegal” immigrants are not all criminals: they are fathers, working under minimum wage to insure a stable life for their families and others; uncles, mothers, older siblings, and children, striving to find a better life in America. They are not all dangerous.

Legal Immigrants

Another opinion in support of mass deportations of illegal immigrants shares that they took the “easy way” in comparison to legal immigrants who “rightfully immigrated here.” However, the truth is that most immigrants that are currently in the US initially immigrated here “illegally” on visas before they got their greencards. Melania Trump, for example, first came here in the 1990s, and the legitimacy of her immigration status before she obtained her green card in 2001 is unclear. The same story goes for Elon Musk; he immigrated to Canada from South Africa, then crossed the Canadian border illegally on a visa. This story isn’t uncommon—a majority of immigrants obtain their legacy through illegal entry or a visa overstay. Before, migrants didn’t have to apply for citizenship, greencards, permanent residency, or to immigrate to America at all; the process was simply to state where you could live and where you would work. There was no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”

Even after obtaining documents, “legal” immigrants are put at risk by this negative rhetoric. Recently, Trump’s administration threatened the safety of those who, by constitutional law, are US citizens. In a targeted raid, ICE detained a native seafood wholesaler in Newark, New Jersey who was a US citizen and a military veteran. The wholesaler’s owner who was also detained was Puerto Rican. ICE is not singling out “illegal aliens,” they are detaining individuals based on race instead of immigration status.

 Deportations have also caused fear among many legal immigrants who have hispanic features. One immigrant tells a reporter, “…even though you are holding valid documents that allow you to work and be in the US, this guidance makes you vulnerable to being picked up by immigration agents and arrested at any time.” It’s clear, then, that the stigma around undocumented immigrants is completely racially based. Illegal immigrants from Europe, such as Melania, and even from bordering countries, such as Elon Musk, are not nearly met with the aggression and inhumane treatment that hispanic citizens are met with. As such, the case for “legal” versus “illegal” immigrants justify treating certain humans as animals.

Conclusion

With this in mind, it’s unlikely that the American citizen can wholly cast aside their biases. Now, America is more politically divided than ever. The reality is that views on immigration should not be polarized: it should be accepting that everybody is entitled to basic human rights, and learning to exercise compassion and empathy. 

The reality is that there is nowhere to place the “illegal” immigrants. Citizens are told that  they will send immigrants back to their countries. The truth is, however, that plans from the Biden administration for hundreds of deportation camps are being put into action. Recently, a Texan state official promised 1400 acres of land to Trump to build these camps, funded mainly from taxpayer money.

The reality is that our economy will suffer. Terms that characterize people as eligible for deportation, such as “undocumented” or “unauthorized” also include 40% of people who have current authorization to work legally in the US Nearly half of the agriculture workforce is composed of undocumented workers who are exploited because businesses feel they can pay them less. Mass deportations take away workers, decreasing production and, in turn, decreasing production creating more demand that leads to a rise in grocery prices. Not only this, but the deportations themselves aren’t exactly free. As stated by the American Immigration Council, “Trump’s mass removal policy could impose a staggering one-time cost of $315 billion on the US.” Deporting 1 million people a year could cost up to $88 billion annually.

The harsh reality, some argue, is that America is turning into an apathetic country. Racism towards immigrants from Central America and Latin America has intensified in recent years. Empathy for these families has been almost non-existent, especially when the media is so adamant about desensitizing its users. One-third of Americans are willing to deport immigrants even if it involves separating families, sending them to countries other than their countries of origin, and even deporting undocumented children. This month, the US was added to a human rights watch list on “Declining Civil Liberties.” America views “illegal” immigrants as subhumans and aliens instead of living, breathing, human beings. What they fail to realize is that we are all the same. Everyone is trying to find opportunity and prosperity in a country that has promised it. America is turning into a country of hatred and close-mindedness instead of a country of life, liberty, and freedom.

References

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/07/us/immigration-deportations-ice-schools.html?searchResultPosition=2

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/18/briefing/the-myth-of-migrant-crime.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgrnn8zxdego

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/world/americas/mexico-deportation-trump.html?searchResultPosition=1

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/us/politics/trump-immigrants-deportation.html?searchResultPosition=3

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/01/17/us/immigrants-trump-deportations.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/us/police-kentucky-deportation-fliers-ku-klux-klan.html?searchResultPosition=5

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/24/us/trump-deportation-legal-immigrant-fears.html?searchResultPosition=6

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/17/us/undocumented-border-families-texas.html?searchResultPosition=12

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/25/us/trump-deportations-migrants-san-diego.html?searchResultPosition=13

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/24/nyregion/nyc-migrant-shelter-deportation.html?searchResultPosition=11

https://www.nytimes.com/article/migration-mexico-honduras-panama-trump.html?searchResultPosition=29

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/trump-deportations-migrants-border-asylum-hearings/?intcid=CNM-00-10abd1h

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-homeland-secretary-joins-ice-new-york-immigration-crackdown-intensifies-2025-01-28

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-immigrants-are-coming-to-the-us

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/21/world/americas/trump-us-mexico-border.html

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/16/nx-s1-5218641/immigrant-detention-trump-deportation-plans

https://www.newsweek.com/americans-warned-grocery-prices-shock-immigration-2027717

https://www.vox.com/2016/11/5/13533816/melania-trump-illegal-immigrant

https://time.com/7266334/us-human-rights-watchlist-civil-liberties

About Post Author

Laura Blandon ('26) & Jessica Tsang ('26)

mliddle@mlschools.org

Happy

1 100 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %

Every March 17th, people around the world wear green attire, raise their glasses, and join festivities to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. What began as a religious holiday honoring the patron saint of Ireland has evolved into a worldwide celebration of Irish culture, with unique traditions emerging in various countries. Here’s a look at how different parts of the world celebrate this holiday.

Ireland

Unsurprisingly, Ireland hosts the most vibrant St. Patrick’s Day celebrations. The day is marked by parades, traditional Irish music, and dance. In cities like Dublin and Cork, parades feature elaborate floats and performers, while smaller villages host local gatherings. Religious activities, such as attending mass, remain an important part of the holiday for many Irish citizens.

United States

With a large Irish-American population, the United States celebrates St. Patrick’s Day with much enthusiasm. Cities such as New York, Boston, and Chicago hold parades. Chicago dyes its river green, a tradition that dates back to 1962. In New York, the annual parade along Fifth Avenue attracts millions of spectators. Across the country, green beer is served, and cities light up landmarks in green colors.

Canada

Canada embraces St. Patrick’s Day with parades and festivals. Montreal has hosted one of the longest-running parades since 1824, while Toronto and Vancouver also feature lively celebrations. Irish pubs become gathering places to enjoy traditional Irish music and dancing.

Australia

St. Patrick’s Day is widely observed in Australia, with Sydney and Melbourne hosting parades and festivals. Irish pubs across the country have large crowds, and in a display of festivity, Sydney’s iconic Opera House is illuminated in green. Many Australians who are Irish use the day to celebrate their heritage with family gatherings and feasts.

Argentina

Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina, hosts one of the largest St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in South America. Unlike traditional parades, the capital’s festivities take on nightlife, with street parties and lively gatherings in the city’s Irish pubs. 

Japan

St. Patrick’s Day may seem unlikely in Japan, but the country has embraced the holiday with enthusiasm. Tokyo’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade, first held in 1992, is the largest in Asia. Participants dress in green and incorporate Japanese cultural elements, such as traditional drumming and performances, creating a fusion of Irish and Japanese heritage.

Germany

In Germany, cities like Munich and Berlin hold parades and cultural events in honor of St. Patrick’s Day. Irish pubs are filled with people enjoying Irish folk music. The holiday has gained popularity among Germans who enjoy celebrating international traditions.

Italy

While it’s not traditionally observed, St. Patrick’s Day has gained interest in Italy, particularly in cities like Rome and Milan, where Irish pubs and cultural centers host parties. The Colosseum and other landmarks are sometimes lit up in green as part of the global “Greening of the World” initiative.

United Arab Emirates

In the United Arab Emirates, St. Patrick’s Day is celebrated in cities like Dubai and Abu Dhabi, where the Irish gather in pubs to enjoy the occasion. Special brunches, concerts, and themed events bring Ireland to the Middle East.

Conclusion

While St. Patrick’s Day originated as a religious observance in Ireland, it has grown into a vibrant global celebration. From parades in New York to street parties in Argentina and cultural fusions in Tokyo, the world unites in honoring Irish heritage. No matter where you are, if you’re wearing green and embracing the day’s festivities, you’re celebrating the global St. Patrick’s Day tradition!

About Post Author

Janvi Singh ('27)

mliddle@mlschools.org

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %

Free Speech or National Security Hazard? The Tiktok Debate

Tiktok entered the social media scene in 2017, when it merged with Musical.ly to become a video-sharing app in which users could post about virtually anything. Since then, it has created thousands of music, fashion, and dance trends, solidifying itself within the cultural bounds of the late 2010’s and early 2020’s. Of its 1.04 billion users, 170 million are American—approximately 50.75% of the U.S. population. It comes as no surprise, then, that the proposal to ban the mega-popular app created quite a bit of backlash despite also garnering bipartisan support.

Concerns surrounding Tiktok initially emerged in 2019, when the app was charged with violating U.S. child-privacy laws, ending in a $5.7 million fine. At the time, apprehension was more so derived from the security of personal information on Tiktok; as of now, however, it has evolved into fears of how that information is used, especially when regarding foreign interference.

“The CCP’s laws require Chinese companies like ByteDance”—the company that owns Tiktok—“to spy on their behalf. That means any Chinese company must grant the CCP access and manipulation capabilities as a design feature,” stated U.S. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

With China being a valiant competitor to the U.S., tensions were bound to be high when Tiktok’s popularity skyrocketed with American users. Legislators worry about ByteDance potentially using the platform to promote CCP propaganda, interfere with U.S. elections, and collect information about U.S leaders and the military. This wary sentiment led to some services banning the app on military-owned phones in December of 2019; later, in February 2023, Tiktok was deleted from all government-issued mobile devices.

The first proposal to ban Tiktok on a national level was made by current president Donald Trump in 2020, as a result of China’s “mishandling” of the COVID-19 epidemic. Despite his contradictory stance as of 2025, his opposition to the app and its company reigned fierce; an opposition that, in April of 2024, was shared by former president Biden. The Tiktok “ban or sell” bill — demanding that Tiktok either be banned on a national level or be sold to an American company — quickly passed through both the House and Senate, eventually gaining its presidential signature. This did not deter Tiktok and ByteDance, however. In May 2024, as a response to the bill, they sued the U.S. government, citing the First Amendment in defense.

Undeniably, the value placed upon freedom of speech in America is overwhelmingly prominent. This was a talking point used by many who found the ban proposal to be blatant censorship.

“All we might be left with at the end of the day is a Supreme Court opinion that weakens First Amendment freedoms on the internet,” stated Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation. Tiktok has notoriously been a platform in which ordinary users are able to build a platform over a short period of time; many such have utilized this platform to voice their opinions. From influencers to presidential candidates (including Donald Trump), the app allows these people to connect with audiences that both share and oppose their opinions to spread news and information. Would it, then, be a threat to the media and democracy as a whole to ban it?

Even after negotiations with Trump, the app’s future is still cloudy, with staunch defenders on either side. Following a brief shutdown on January 19th, many are still wary due to the ambiguity of the situation; with the “ban or sell” bill still up in the air, Tiktok’s legality rests in the hands of the future. 

Donald Trump’s Tiktok Flip-Flop

A little over four years ago during his first term, President Trump called for TikTok to be banned, mentioning in a July 2020 television interview that his administration was considering a ban due to China’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Just a few days later aboard Air Force One, he remarked that “As far as TikTok is concerned, we’re banning them from the United States.” And on Facebook and Instagram, his campaign released ads accusing TikTok of “spying” on users, with the message, “Do you think we should ban TikTok? Sign the petition NOW!” These ads have since been deleted.

On August 6, 2020, Trump signed Executive Order 13942: the foundation of the “ban or sell” approach to TikTok that the U.S. government continues to pursue today. In the order, he argued that TikTok’s data collection practices risked the Chinese Communist Party—or CCP—accessing Americans’ personal or proprietary information, increasing the threat of “blackmail and corporate espionage,” and constituting a threat to national security. The order mandated that TikTok either be banned within 45 days or sold to an American company. Following this, companies such as Microsoft, Oracle, and Walmart lined up offers to purchase the app, but Trump’s plan never came to fruition. Just two months after he issued this executive order, federal courts struck it down as unconstitutional. And after Trump lost the 2020 election, his successor Joe Biden revoked the ban in 2021.

It’s clear that Trump had no love for TikTok back in 2020. But it is just as clear that in 2024, his views on the issue dramatically changed. In March 2024, he spoke out against bipartisan-backed legislation in Congress that aimed to do the same thing he tried in 2020—have TikTok banned or sold to an American company. He defended this viewpoint in subsequent social media posts and television appearances, citing concerns with freedom of speech, helping Meta, and his own campaign strategy.

Indeed, Trump has leaned into TikTok—potentially due to the encouragement of his son, Barron—and has used the app to appeal to young voters. He commented in March that young people would “go crazy” without TikTok, created an account in June, and in September, boasted about his large following, calling himself a “big star” on the app. He furthered, “For all those that want to save Tik Tok in America, vote for Trump!”

Since winning the 2024 election, he has taken action to counter the “ban or sell” bill. Trump met with TikTok executives on December 16, 2024, at his residence at Mar-a-Lago. A few days later, he filed a brief with the Supreme Court, asking them to temporarily block the January 19th deadline set by the legislation. The day of the ban deadline, TikTok itself released a message on its app to users, saying, “We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!” The next day—Trump’s inauguration—Trump issued an executive order to “save TikTok,” prompting another message from the app, which said, “As a result of President Trump’s efforts, TikTok is back in the U.S.!”

So, how did a man so vehemently against TikTok and the threat of Chinese espionage flip-flop so drastically? One can only speculate, but three main potential motives stand out. The first is simply garnering public approval. Following his initial attempt to ban TikTok, Trump lost the 2020 election. Since then, his stance on the issue has reflected public opinion.

In 2023, for instance, about 50% of American adults supported a ban. However, by 2024, this number dropped to 32%. It was around this time that his public stance also changed—mirroring the sentiment of the American people. This was not a lone incident in his campaign, either. Although consistently inconsistent on the issue of abortion, Trump went from an overall pro-life stance in his first term to a more moderate position in his 2024 run, attempting to appeal to women and more moderate voters. And despite previously denouncing Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook as an “enemy of the people,” Trump has flip-flopped on that too, since allying with Zuckerberg and a number of other tech executives. It is highly possible that he simply did not have any real skin in the game with regards to a TikTok ban, and is taking whichever side is more advantageous to him and his support.

This leads to potential motive two—support from a specific group of people: young voters. As mentioned before, Trump has a large following (14.8+ million followers) on TikTok. And when it comes to the app’s popularity, it is clear that young people make up the majority of its users. Perhaps Trump’s campaign reasoned that portraying himself as the “savior” of TikTok would bring over voters from that demographic group. This certainly adds up—especially with TikTok itself displaying messages thanking him by name after the ban was temporarily blocked—and seems to have been successful.

Although the Republican Party generally receives much less support from young voters, there was a major realignment this past election cycle. Obviously, this cannot be attributed entirely to his TikTok campaign promises, but Trump’s usage of the app to connect with young people in a way other Republican lawmakers have failed to do, along with his emphasis on “saving TikTok” certainly contributed to the unexpected support he received from that demographic.

The last motive Trump could have had in switching up is financial. In March 2024, Trump met with major Republican donor Jeff Yass, who owns an approximately 7% share—worth $21 billion—of Bytedance, the company that owns TikTok. Other reports claimed that Yass had a $33 billion stake in TikTok, and had been threatening to pull support from Republican lawmakers backing the bipartisan bill to ban the app. Yass had also helped found the Susquehanna International Group, a trading firm and major supporter of lobbying group Club for Growth, which hired former Trump senior counselor Kellyanne Conway to lobby for TikTok in Congress. Surprisingly, this speculation came from Trump’s own supporters, including his former advisor Steve Bannon. In a social media post, Bannon suggested that Trump was paid off by Yass to oppose the ban, remarking, “Simple: Yass Coin.” Trump himself has denied this, claiming that he and Yass did not discuss TikTok at all in their meeting, and that he was unaware of Yass’ connection to the company.

Post-Tiktok Ban

With over 135.79 TikTok users, the United States takes the crown for the most TikTok users. Now with the impending TikTok ban, users—ranging from regular users to company owners—are faced with a major challenge: what are they going to do now? 

Many influencers and users say they will go to Instagram Reels, or another platform named Lemon8 to continue their usage of similar types of media. But users have reported unhappiness with those respective platforms, claiming that “with each new update, we grow increasingly dissatisfied.” Furthermore, because Instagram is part of Meta, users have shown opposition to using the platform that could be partly responsible for the banning of the original app: TikTok. This is why many have decided to use a more niche app: RedNote.

Originally known as XiaoHongShu (小红书), past users of TikTok have discovered themselves immersed in a new foreign app. At first, the app did not have any English features; even the app’s name, as shown in the App Store, was not in English. Many users claim that RedNote “feels like Pinterest, Tiktok, and Instagram all into one.” American users even called themselves “TikTok refugees” on RedNote as they explore the new realm of the social media platform. 

What shocked many users was the sheer vastness of the new digital world they were exposed to. Even though RedNote may seem foreign and unfamiliar to new users, many people from Asia use RedNote as their main source of social media, keeping up with current trends and living their life day by day. With so many trends originating from mainland China, many American users have been pleasantly shocked by what they are seeing on RedNote, even making jokes with people across the globe. For instance, users have been exchanging cat photos as an entry fee for the “TikTok refugees.” Additionally, people from both nations are exchanging stories on their respective living and working conditions, sharing about their daily life, and connecting with more people.

Americans even took initiative to start to learn and immerse themselves into this new world. Duolingo, a language learning app, reported a 216% increase in Mandarin learners, showing the extent of preparation Americans were willing to take in the wake of the TikTok ban. On January 16, 2025, two days before the reported TikTok ban, there were 3 million new downloads of RedNote, which made RedNote the most-downloaded app in the App Store for many days. 

With the exposure to new cultures and customs, people from both nations are connecting and bonding over shared experiences, spreading their respective cultures, traditions, and trends. Adults are planning their future vacations in China, Chinese students are asking American students for help on their English homework, American students are doing the same for their math homework, doctors are comparing their working conditions, and more. People are feeling surprised, utterly shocked, and appreciative of this new movement. And ironically, despite the ban aiming to strengthen the barrier between the American and Chinese people, it achieved the opposite effect—pushing Americans to an actually Chinese-owned social media app and facilitating significant cultural exchange between the citizens of each country.

Final Thoughts

TikTok’s future is still up in the air, caught in the crossroads of national security interests, free speech, and the whims of the new Trump administration. What is certain is that any long-term resolution to the issue will have far-reaching consequences—consequences that have already begun to unfold. Whether the ban will be implemented in the future or not, the proposal itself marks a turning page in American legislation. Will fears for national security supposedly overshadow democracy and free speech? Or does the motive of protecting citizens ultimately lead to more division? What new developments and trends will emerge from such events? With everything still developing and changing, it’s undeniable that either new things will emerge or current things will be lost.

About Post Author

Grace Fu ('26), Helen Han ('26), Laura Blandon ('26)

mliddle@mlschools.org

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %