Wheels On Down the Road

Tag: Current Events

  • When the Season Shifts

    When the Season Shifts

    When I first became a soccer fan, I never thought much about the weather. It was just part of the experience. The game and I have evolved. I’ve started thinking about how changing seasons shape what accessibility really means for fans like me. Changing bodies also influences this meaning.

    I’ve been reading about Major League Soccer’s proposed move to a fall–spring schedule. I understand the reasoning behind it. Still, I can’t help but think about how it will change the fan experience. This is especially true for those of us who feel the seasons differently than we used to.

    When I first became a fan back in 2015, the cold didn’t bother me. I was just excited to be there to feel part of something alive and electric. I remember going to a game one chilly October and bringing one of my aunts along. She thought I “looked cold,” even though I swore I was fine. By halftime, she’d bought me a hot chocolate, a hat, and maybe even a sweatshirt.

    I still remember that small act of care. The steam rose from the cup. Her laughter cut through the cold air. I didn’t think much of it then. Yet, looking back, I realize it was one of those simple, human moments that stay with you.

    A couple of years later, at our first home game in MLS, the weather turned on us fast. Heavy snow fell throughout the match, thick, wet flakes that clung to your eyelashes and soaked your gloves. The snow was coming down so fast that they had to use leaf blowers to clear the lines.

    My toes went numb halfway through, but it didn’t matter. The atmosphere was electric, the crowd united in equal parts misery and joy. We were there together, and that was enough.

    Those were different times. I was a different person. I was more willing to push through the discomfort just to be part of the moment.

    These days, I’ve noticed that the same weather affects me differently. I attend fewer matches as temperatures drop, and this year I didn’t opt in for playoff tickets at all. It’s not that my passion for the team has faded far from it. It’s just that Minnesota’s fall weather is unpredictable. This unpredictability makes it hard to plan. I find it difficult to feel confident that I’ll be comfortable or safe. The wind cuts a little deeper now. The cold lingers a little longer.

    Supporting a team with an outdoor stadium like Allianz Field comes with that territory. Still, it’s made me think more about what “accessibility” really means. We often talk about it in physical terms, ramps, seating, transportation, and those things matter deeply.

    Accessibility can also mean something softer, more personal: being capable of participating fully without discomfort, fear, or exhaustion. Weather affects this aspect, particularly for fans with mobility challenges. It impacts those with chronic pain or other health conditions, making the cold more than just an inconvenience.

    For some fans, colder games are part of the charm. They enjoy layers of scarves and hands wrapped around coffee cups. There is a sense of endurance that becomes almost a badge of honor. But for others, it’s not that simple. The cold can turn joy into endurance, and that can change the whole experience.

    As I’ve grown and my needs have shifted, I’ve noticed some changes. I’ve started to see how sports, something built on togetherness, can sometimes overlook the quiet ways inclusion matters.

    The fan experience isn’t just about ticket sales. It isn’t solely about crowd energy either. It’s about whether everyone can share in those moments equally. That’s true for people of all kinds.

    This includes those experiencing changes due to age. It also includes people with disabilities, sensory needs, or simply changing bodies who experience the world differently than before. Accessibility isn’t one-size-fits-all, and weather adds another layer to that reality.

    I still love this sport, this team, and the community it builds. Soccer has been a steady thread through so many seasons of my life, literally and figuratively. But my relationship to it has evolved as I have. The same stands that once made me feel unstoppable now remind me to listen to my body. To respect its limits. To show up in ways that make sense for where I am now.

    If MLS does move to a fall–spring schedule, I hope clubs and stadiums will think creatively. They should consider what that means for all fans.

    Maybe that looks like expanding covered seating in some venues. It could also mean improving heat access. Or it could simply involve offering more understanding around accessibility options in cold weather. Sometimes inclusion begins with small acts. It could be a staff member who notices. It might be a space to warm up. Or it could be the willingness to ask, “What do you need to feel comfortable here?”

    For many of us, being a fan isn’t about braving the elements anymore. It’s about connection: to the game, to the people around us, and to ourselves. It’s about finding warmth in community, even when the temperature drops.

    Seasons shift, people change, and that’s okay. What matters most is finding warmth in the stands. We need warmth in the community. It is essential in the spaces that still make us feel like we belong.

  • Forever United: Reflections at Season’s End

    Forever United: Reflections at Season’s End

    As I write this, it’s the day after the final regular season home game. As the final whistle blew under the bright lights of Allianz Field, I felt that familiar mix of gratitude. I also felt nostalgia and quiet pride. The last regular season home game always carries a special weight. It’s more than just a match. It’s a celebration of everything we’ve shared over the months.

    Even though Minnesota United made it to the playoffs, I’ve decided not to get playoff tickets this year. The main reason is cost. I already struggle to afford the regular season. I am already making payments on my season tickets for the 2026 season. As much as I’d love to be there, I just couldn’t justify the extra expense.

    The other reason is the unpredictable Minnesota weather. As the years go on, I find myself less tolerant of the cold. We’ve been blessed with a warmer-than-usual fall. Still, there’s no guarantee it will stay that way. Sometimes practicality wins out, even when the heart wants otherwise.

    The Heart of the Game

    Soccer has always been more than just a game to me. It’s community, connection, and pure emotion wrapped into ninety minutes. Every season brings new stories, new faces, and new memories that stick with you long after the final whistle. This year was no different. I didn’t make it to as many matches as I’d hoped. Yet, the moments I did experience reminded me why I fell in love with this team. Those moments showed me what made this team special in the first place.

    Sometimes life has other plans. Sometimes disability makes things harder than they should be. There are days when energy fades, when logistics get tricky, when even passion has to wait its turn. But that’s okay. We do the best we can with what we’re given, and that’s something to be proud of too.

    The games I did make it to were nothing short of incredible. The roar of the crowd excites me. The rhythm of the chants energizes me. The pulse of the drums reminds me every time why I love this sport. There’s something almost sacred about being part of a crowd that breathes in unison. Hearts beat for the same goal. Voices rise together under a canopy of light.

    Surley’s Season

    Surley didn’t make it to as many games this year either — for a wide variety of reasons. There were days that were simply too cold, and others that were far too hot. Then there were nights like the last game, when they launched pyrotechnics. We’ve made a lot of progress on his fear of fireworks, and I didn’t want to risk a setback. Still, there were plenty of good moments. On a bright note, Surley did make an appearance on the jumbo screen this season. It was akin to what Dempsey did back in the day. A proud moment for both of us.

    Forever United

    Even when I can’t be there, my connection to this team doesn’t fade. It simply finds new ways to shine. Whether I’m watching from home, the love remains constant. It stays strong when I’m checking updates on my phone. I carry their spirit in my heart, unwavering.

    Because love for the game isn’t measured in seats filled or screens watched. It’s found in the stories we tell, the memories that linger, and the quiet hope that refuses to fade.

    It lives in the roar of the crowd that still echoes in your mind. You hear it in the rhythm of the chants you can’t help but hum. You feel the pride that stays with you long after the lights go out.

    Minnesota United is more than a soccer team. It’s a community and a shared heartbeat. It serves as a reminder that belonging can take many forms.

    Whether in the stands, at home, or cheering from the heart, I’ll always carry that unity with me.

    Go Minnesota United. Forever United. 💙🖤⚽

  • Government Shutdowns: Why Ordinary Americans Pay the Price While Congress Gets Paid

    Government Shutdowns: Why Ordinary Americans Pay the Price While Congress Gets Paid

    The United States government has shut down. Again.

    This isn’t just political theater happening in Washington. When the government shuts down, real people suffer. Federal workers are furloughed without pay. Others are forced to show up and work for free, waiting and hoping that back pay eventually comes. Contractors may never see the money they lose. Families who rely on government programs are left with uncertainty.

    Meanwhile, Congress just shrugs and keeps collecting their paychecks.

    Here’s what gets me: if I don’t pay my rent, I lose my apartment. If I don’t pay the electric bill, the lights go out. But when Congress doesn’t pay the government’s bills? They get to stay in their cushy offices while the rest of the country pays the price.


    The Duct Tape of Democracy: What a Continuing Resolution Is

    When Congress can’t pass an actual budget, they often slap on a Continuing Resolution (CR). Think of it like duct tape: it keeps the machine running for a little while, but it’s no long-term fix.

    A CR basically says: “We’ll just keep spending at last year’s levels.” That means agencies can’t start new projects. They can’t adjust to new needs. They just sit in limbo, waiting for Congress to stop bickering. Sometimes multiple CRs get passed in a single year — kicking the can further down the road.

    And when even a CR doesn’t pass? That’s when the shutdown slams into place.

    A Quick History Lesson on Shutdowns

    Shutdowns weren’t always the rule. Before 1980, if Congress blew the deadline, agencies kept operating. That changed after Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti ruled that under the Antideficiency Act, funding gaps legally required shutdowns. Since then, they’ve become a recurring disaster.

    Some of the biggest shutdowns:

    • 1995–96 (Clinton vs. Gingrich): Lasted 21 days. About 800,000 workers furloughed. A standoff over spending cuts.
    • 2013 (Obama): Sixteen days. Sparked by the fight over the Affordable Care Act. Cost the economy an estimated $24 billion.
    • 2018–19 (Trump): The record-holder at 35 days. Caused by the border wall funding battle. About 800,000 workers went without pay; countless contractors never got their money back.
    • 2025 (Right Now): Once again, Congress blew the deadline. Here we are, living the same old nightmare.

    Every shutdown looks different. The fallout is predictable. Families end up at food banks because paychecks stopped. Veterans wait longer for benefits. Disability services are disrupted. Medical research is stalled. Parks are shuttered. Small businesses near federal facilities take losses they can’t recover.

    Who Gets Hurt the Most

    Shutdowns don’t hit everyone equally.

    Disabled people often feel the blow first. There are delays in Social Security claims. There are disruptions to medical research. Federal grants that keep vital services running can be paused.

    Veterans face delayed benefits. Families who rely on nutrition programs like WIC find themselves in limbo.

    For federal employees who live paycheck to paycheck, a missed paycheck can have serious consequences. Many of these employees are veterans or disabled. It can mean bills pile up, rent becomes overdue, or prescriptions are skipped. It’s not just numbers on a ledger. It’s human lives destabilized by political games.

    Why This Keeps Happening

    Here’s the kicker: shutdowns aren’t about money. The U.S. has the credit to pay its bills. Shutdowns are about politics — leaders holding the budget hostage to force fights over unrelated issues.

    It’s brinkmanship at the expense of ordinary people.

    A Better Way Forward

    It doesn’t have to be this way.

    Look at Minnesota. Our state legislature is required to pass a budget by the end of session. Is it always pretty? No. But the government doesn’t shut down every time lawmakers disagree. There’s a built-in deadline that forces people to do the job.

    Why can’t Congress do the same?

    Maybe we need rules that make shutdowns impossible. No budget? No recess. No budget? No pay. No budget? No office.

    If I don’t pay my rent, I get evicted. If I don’t pay my bills, I lose my lights. Maybe it’s time Congress faced the same reality.

    Conclusion

    What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts, but let’s keep it civil. No name-calling, no bashing, no personal attacks. This is about ideas, not insults.

    And let me be perfectly clear: I am not laying the blame on one party alone. Both Republicans and Democrats share responsibility for this mess. My goal isn’t to pick sides. I aim to highlight a broken system that keeps hurting real people. I also want to suggest a better way forward.

  • When Social Media Follows You to Work

    In today’s world, it’s easy to forget an important fact. What we post on social media doesn’t just reflect on us personally. It can also reflect on our employers.

    Many organizations have policies. Sometimes they even have contractual clauses. These allow them to take action if an employee’s public statements cross certain lines.

    Everyone has the right to express their views. It’s important to be mindful of how those words could be perceived. Consider the potential consequences they carry.

    It’s also easy to forget how permanent the internet really is. Even if you remove a post there is no guarantee that someone hasn’t taken a screenshot of the post beforehand.

    I’ll admit, I’ve made posts in the past that weren’t the wisest choices. In one case, I ended up in a conversation with my human resources department because of something I posted.

    After that, I scrubbed all references to employers from my personal profiles. Of course, that’s not a foolproof way to keep things from getting back to your workplace. I still maintain a LinkedIn profile. It lists my employment history. The truth is people can be surprisingly skilled at internet sleuthing. More often than not, they can figure out where someone works — or even lives.

    Recent events have made the stakes even clearer. According to reporting in The New York Times, more than 145 people across the country have lost their jobs. They were fired, suspended, or pushed out after making statements about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

    These weren’t just public figures or media personalities. They were nurses, restaurant workers, nonprofit staffers, and even a police officer.

    • A nurse in Phoenix lost her job after joking near a nurses’ station about the shooting, even though she never wished Kirk dead.
    • A nonprofit literacy worker in Milwaukee was fired after posting on Facebook about gun violence. She wrote, “Yes I am making his death political, no I do not care.” She intended to highlight policy issues. However, others interpreted her words as saying Kirk “got what he deserved.”
    • In Wisconsin, an elementary school administrator was wrongly accused of celebrating Kirk’s death. Even though the post wasn’t hers, she was flooded with death threats. She had to leave her home. She returned to school only with extra police security.

    These stories highlight a bigger problem: what we mean isn’t always what people hear. Tone, body language, and inflection matter in spoken conversation. Online, all of that disappears. A laughing emoji, a sarcastic remark, or a blunt opinion can be stripped of its context. It can then be interpreted in the worst possible light.

    And once a post is out there, it can be picked up, shared, and judged far beyond its original audience. A message written for 70 friends can end up in front of 70,000 strangers. An employer may suddenly feel pressure to act.

    This raises difficult questions. The First Amendment protects speech from government punishment, but it doesn’t shield employees from workplace consequences. Employers, fearing reputational damage or political backlash, often act quickly — sometimes too quickly — when controversial speech surfaces. That leaves workers navigating a world where one poorly worded post could cost them their livelihood.

    I don’t pretend to have all the answers. People should be mindful of what they share online. But I also believe we need more nuance and grace. Everyone has said things they regret. Sometimes what looks like cruelty is really clumsy anger. It might also be gallows humor or frustration taken out of context.

    In a society where “the internet never forgets,” we should practice remembering something important. Human beings are more than their worst posts.

    I’m of an age where I grew up right as the internet was going mainstream. I was finishing college when Facebook first started taking off. I’ve seen both the “wild west” era of online posting. Also, I’ve seen today’s world where a single misstep can follow you forever.

    I see both sides. Employees need to think before they post. Employers and the public also need to remember that one post doesn’t define a person’s entire character.

    So I’ll end with this: How do we balance accountability with compassion in the digital age? How should we weigh the permanence of words written online against the humanity of the people who write them? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

  • Why I Applaud Schools for Banning Smartphones (And Why You Should Too)

    Why I Applaud Schools for Banning Smartphones (And Why You Should Too)

    Kids are heading back to school, and I’m thrilled to see more schools taking a firm stand against smartphones. Honestly, it’s about time. Kids don’t need phones.

    They’re not the lifeline we pretend they are. They’re attention traps. They pull students into a digital black hole. Instead of being trapped, students should be focusing on math, making friends, or just being kids.

    And yes, I say this as an adult who knows how easy it is to lose hours to the scroll. If I can’t always resist the temptation, imagine what it’s like for a seventh-grader in the middle of algebra.

    The Research

    The research backs up what most of us already feel in our gut. Nearly three-quarters of school leaders say phones hurt students’ mental health, and a similar number say they damage attention spans. Teachers see it too—about one-third call cellphone distraction a major problem in classrooms. And the issue isn’t small. Studies show teens spend an average of 1.5 hours on their phones during the school day. That’s not “just a quick check.” That’s a full class period wasted every single day.

    And yet, kids are getting smartphones younger and younger. More than half of eight-year-olds already own a phone or tablet. By age eleven, most kids have one in their pocket. Eighty-four percent of teens now carry smartphones everywhere they go.

    Pair that with relentless notifications, hundreds a day, and it’s no wonder anxiety, stress, and fractured attention are running high. We’ve given them a tool designed to keep them hooked. Then, we wonder why they can’t stay focused in class.

    Here’s the kicker: bans work. When schools in the Netherlands restricted phones, 75 percent reported better concentration. Additionally, 59 percent saw kids interacting more. Nearly 30 percent even saw grades go up.

    U.S. schools experimenting with phone bans are noticing something similar…kids are actually talking to each other again.

    Cafeterias are noisier in the best way. Teachers report calmer classrooms. Some schools are even bringing back foosball tables. They are also reintroducing board games. Suddenly, lunchtime looks like 1998 instead of a TikTok set.

    Parental Push back

    Parents often push back with the same argument: What if I need to reach my child in an emergency? I get it. The idea of being cut off feels scary.

    But let’s be real…you grew up without a phone. Your parents grew up without a phone. If something happened, they called the school or they showed up. It worked.

    Civilization didn’t collapse. And it wouldn’t now. There are systems in place for emergencies, and banning phones during school hours doesn’t mean banning common sense.

    The bottom line? Smartphones aren’t helping kids succeed in school. They’re stealing focus, hurting mental health, and replacing real human connection with endless notifications.

    If I had kids, I wouldn’t give them a smartphone, tablet, or computer at all.

    It’s not to punish them. I’d want them to live in the real world and not inside a feed. I’d want them to have real, face-to-face conversations instead of hiding behind a screen.

    They don’t need to be exposed to all the junk floating around the internet. Honestly, they already get enough of that from streaming platforms… but that’s a whole other conversation.

    Technology should serve us, not swallow us whole.

    Schools banning phones isn’t overreach; it’s a reset. It’s a chance to give kids what they need most space to learn, think, and just be kids.

    Chime In

    What do you think? Should schools go all-in and block phones completely, or do you think kids should still have access during the day?

    Sources and Further Reading

    Resources for Parents

  • When School Safety Plans Leave Students Behind

    When School Safety Plans Leave Students Behind

    I wasn’t sure how much more I was going to say about the recent school shooting at Annunciation Catholic School. But then I stumbled across an article in the Minnesota Star Tribune, and it stopped me in my tracks.

    We practice drills in school—lock downs, tornado, fire—because safety matters. I remember those drills vividly from my own time in elementary school. My experience was never quite like my classmates’.

    During tornado drills, everyone crouched on the floor, arms covering their necks. Me? Still sitting upright in my wheelchair, because that was the safest option we had.

    Fire drills were even more complicated. I remember a specific instance when the alarm went off. No one was sure if it was a drill or the real thing. Elevators can’t be used in an actual fire, but that day, there wasn’t time to debate. A staff member just scooped me up and carried me down three flights of stairs. I sat on the grass outside without my chair until we got the all-clear.

    I applaud that staff member for their quick thinking in getting me out of the building. I also applaud the Annunciation staff. They pulled a student out of his wheelchair and shielded him with their bodies. Those moments were heroic—but they were also unplanned. They happened because people acted on instinct, not because the system had a clear, inclusive plan.

    The Hard Truth: Our Plans Have Gaps

    Yes, emergency procedures can be written into IEPs. Many do. But let’s be honest—you can’t plan for every scenario. Right now, too many schools are failing to plan for some of the most basic ones.

    Here’s the reality for students with disabilities:

    • They may not be able to flatten to the ground during a lock down.
    • They may not move as fast as their peers—or at all—when evacuating.
    • They may not cognitively understand what’s happening in the chaos and could unintentionally move toward danger.

    These are life-or-death gaps. And yet, they’re rarely talked about until tragedy strikes.

    What Minnesota Requires—and Where It Falls Short

    Minnesota law requires schools to have comprehensive emergency plans, and those plans are supposed to include students with disabilities. Best practices suggest:

    • Individual Evacuation Plans for students who need them
    • Accessible alerts for students with hearing or vision impairments
    • Specialized evacuation equipment, like stair chairs

    But in practice, these things don’t always happen. Many schools still:

    • Skip individualized drills because they’re time-consuming
    • Lack staff training for evacuating students with disabilities
    • Depend on instinct in emergencies, instead of clear systems

    That gap between policy and practice is dangerous—and it needs attention now.

    The Bigger Picture: Gun Violence and Safety for All

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again:

    • We need common-sense gun reform.
    • We need mental health screenings.
    • We do not need weapons of war on our streets.

    I support the Second Amendment. I support responsible gun ownership. But firearms designed to fire dozens of rounds in seconds have no place in civilian life. They exist for one purpose: destruction.

    Until laws change, we live in a reality where lock down drills and emergency plans are essential. That reality must include every student.

    What Needs to Happen Now

    We can’t just design safety for the majority and leave the minority behind. Here’s what schools should be doing now:

    • Individualized Safety Plans for every student with mobility, sensory, or cognitive disabilities
    • Regular drills that include students with disabilities (not afterthought drills)
    • Evacuation equipment and staff training to make sure no one is left behind
    • Collaboration with first responders so they know how to assist students with disabilities during real emergencies

    Why This Matters

    I hate writing about this. It breaks me to even think about it. But ignoring it won’t make it go away. These conversations matter because too often, we design for the majority and leave the rest to fend for themselves.

    It’s time to change that. Every student deserves a clear, safe path in an emergency. No exceptions.

    We can’t wait for another headline to have this conversation. Start it now—because safety should never be optional.

    What You Can Do Today

    • Ask your school if students with disabilities have individualized safety plans.
    • Talk to your school board about inclusive drills and evacuation equipment.
    • Advocate at the state level for stronger accountability and resources for schools.

    Resources for Parents and Advocates

  • The Tug-of-War Between Thinking and Speaking

    The Tug-of-War Between Thinking and Speaking

    Ever felt like your mouth and your brain are in a tug-of-war? That’s me, whenever a sensitive topic comes up especially when it’s not about me directly. I want to say something, but I don’t want to say the wrong thing. Here’s what I’ve learned about breaking that silence.

    There’s something I want to admit: When conversations get sensitive, I often stay silent. These are especially topics that don’t directly affect me. It’s not because I don’t care or I’m indifferent. Far from it. I stay silent because I struggle to express what’s on my mind. I worry about sounding insensitive or stepping on someone’s toes.

    I’ve caught myself biting my tongue more times than I can count. It’s not because I lack an opinion.

    It is because I’m afraid of how my words might land. I worry about being labeled a bigot, or racist, or narrow-minded, simply for sharing my honest perspective. And honestly? That fear sometimes feels paralyzing.

    People often assume silence means indifference. But in my experience, it’s usually the opposite: a mix of empathy, self-awareness, and caution.

    It’s that inner struggle. You want to contribute meaningfully. However, you don’t want to cause harm or come across the wrong way.

    The problem is, if I wait until I can say everything perfectly, I might never speak at all. And I know I’m not alone in this. Many people wrestle with how to balance sharing their truth with being respectful and open.

    So here’s what I’ve learned helps me:

    • Start by sharing my intent: making it clear I’m coming from a place of care and curiosity, not judgment.
    • Acknowledge my own limitations: recognizing when something isn’t my lived experience and being open to correction.
    • Focus on sharing one clear thought at a time, rather than trying to say everything all at once.
    • Leave room for dialogue: inviting others to share their perspectives and help me see what I might be missing.

    It’s not perfect, and I still stumble sometimes. But speaking this way has helped me move from silence to conversation without feeling like I’m walking a verbal tightrope.

    I’m sharing this because I plan to open up about some sensitive issues in the future. And I want you, the reader, to know. When I do, it’s coming from a place of honesty and respect. Even if it’s imperfect.

    If you ever find yourself hesitating to speak up for fear of saying the wrong thing, know you’re not alone. It’s okay to be cautious, but don’t let that stop you from sharing your thoughts and feelings. The world needs your voice, even if it’s sometimes a little rough around the edges.

  • A Dangerous Precedent

    A Dangerous Precedent

    A Quick Word Before We Begin

    In the age of TikTok headlines and 24-hour news cycles, stories come and go at warp speed. Even major developments—like the string of settlements between powerful institutions and Donald Trump—are quickly overshadowed by the next viral controversy. While much has already been said about these deals, I believe this conversation deserves more depth and context. So I’m adding my voice to it. Let’s dig in.

    When Colleges and Newsrooms Pay to Stay Silent

    Columbia made a massive $200 million payout. ABC followed with a $15 million hush-money deal. CBS also sealed a deal worth $16 million. Institutions are caving to politically motivated pressure, which jeopardizes academic integrity, press freedom, and democratic norms.

    Something Strange, and Dangerous, Is Happening

    In the past eight months, a pattern has emerged. Institutions, once considered the bedrock of academic freedom, are quietly agreeing to large settlements. These agreements are with Donald Trump or his administration. These aren’t settlements of moral or legal accountability. They are settlements of political intimidation.

    Let’s walk through the cases:

    1. Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million. This payment resolves federal investigations tied to its handling of foreign funding disclosures. It also addresses its response to antisemitism and pro-Palestinian protests. The payment allowed Columbia to restore access to roughly $400 million in frozen federal funding.
    2. ABC News, owned by Disney, settled a defamation lawsuit by Trump. This was over George Stephanopoulos’s repeated claim that Trump was “found liable for rape” in the E. Jean Carroll case—a legal finding that actually stopped short of that label. Disney paid $15 million to Trump’s presidential library and another $1 million in legal fees.
    3. Paramount/CBS settled with Trump after he alleged that a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris constituted “election interference.” The network agreed to pay $16 million. It also agreed to donate programming value to Trump’s campaign. Additionally, it will release full transcripts of future candidate interviews.

    None of these settlements included a court finding against the institutions. None of them were compelled by loss in court. They were voluntary. And that’s the problem.

    Columbia University: $200 Million and Policy Concessions

    Columbia’s settlement was staggering not just in dollars but in scope. Beyond the $200 million fine, it included sweeping changes to academic and student governance. The changes involved reshaping its Middle Eastern studies department. It banned race-based admissions policies. Additionally, dozens of students and faculty were disciplined.

    The underlying investigations were rooted in Trump-era policies that targeted elite academic institutions. Critics argue they were less about compliance and more about culture war. By settling, Columbia may have preserved short-term funding but sacrificed its long-term credibility as an independent educational institution.

    ABC News: $15 Million for a Word

    The ABC News case sets an equally grim precedent. After anchor George Stephanopoulos repeatedly misstated that Trump had been found liable for rape, Trump sued for defamation. The actual legal finding was for sexual abuse and defamation, not rape.

    Rather than fight the case, Disney paid $15 million to Trump’s presidential library and covered $1 million in legal fees. They also issued a public apology.

    This may seem like a reasonable correction, but the implications are dire. Legal scholars warn that it gives powerful public figures a playbook. They can target a minor misstatement. Then, they escalate it into a lawsuit. Finally, they extract concessions to fuel their political brand.

    CBS/Paramount: Election Interference, or Editorial Independence?

    The CBS settlement over its 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris is arguably the most absurd. Trump alleged the interview violated election law by favoring Harris and sued under Texas’s consumer protection laws.

    Despite the lawsuit’s flimsy legal grounding, Paramount settled. The company agreed to a $16 million payout. Additionally, they accepted a range of non-financial concessions. These include releasing full interview transcripts for any future presidential candidates.

    CBS insiders expressed outrage. One longtime producer resigned, calling the settlement a betrayal of journalistic independence. Dan Rather called it “a sell-out to extortion.”

    Many media analysts and political commentators believe the settlement was about more than just legal risk. It was aimed at facilitating Paramount’s merger with Skydance Media. Trump could effectively stall or block the merger through his influence over the FCC. The settlement is widely seen as a strategic move to secure regulatory clearance.

    The Real Damage: Institutional Cowardice

    What these cases share is not just large payouts—it’s institutional surrender. When power is abused to intimidate, institutions should stand up, not cave in.

    The real damage isn’t measured in millions of dollars. It’s in:

    • The self-censorship that will follow. Reporters and professors may avoid controversial topics.
    • The politicization of academic research and journalistic standards. Compliance becomes policy.
    • The erosion of public trust. If our most credible institutions fold under pressure, who can we trust to speak truth to power?

    What’s at Stake

    These settlements are not about accountability. They are about leverage.

    They reveal a strategy: use the legal system to financially exhaust your critics, then spin their silence into political capital.

    If this continues, we risk normalizing a future where:

    • Power is transactional.
    • Truth is negotiable.
    • Dissent is punishable.

    What We Need Now

    This moment demands more than outrage. It demands resolve. Here’s what must happen:

    1. Demand Transparency – Institutions must publicly explain their settlement decisions.
    2. Strengthen Legal Protections – For journalism, academic freedom, and nonprofit independence.
    3. Support Courageous Institutions – Alumni, donors, and audiences should reward integrity, not cowardice.

    Because when truth is silenced by settlements, democracy becomes little more than a brand.

    If you appreciated this analysis, share it widely. Stay loud. Stay informed. Because the cost of silence is too high.

    Sources

  • Still in Business: How Trump’s Refusal to Divest Shattered Presidential Norms

    Still in Business: How Trump’s Refusal to Divest Shattered Presidential Norms

    Americans expect their presidents to work for the people, not for personal profit. Traditionally, presidents have gone to great lengths to separate themselves from their private financial interests. But Donald Trump broke that norm in 2016, and he did it again in 2024.

    Despite claiming otherwise, Trump never truly divested from his sprawling business empire. Instead, he used the presidency to enhance his brand. He enriched himself in the process. This created an unprecedented web of conflicts of interest. It set a dangerous new standard for executive ethics.

    I’ve been following this story for years. However, it was a NPR article that finally pushed me to write about it. The piece highlighted just how far Trump’s business tentacles have reached, even during his second term in office.

    What Divestment Is…And Why It Matters

    Divestment isn’t about optics; it’s a safeguard against corruption.

    It means fully separating a public official from financial assets that could bias their decision-making. In most cases, that means selling off those assets. Alternatively, it means placing them in a blind trust. This is a structure managed by an independent party. The party makes investment decisions without the official’s knowledge or input.

    Organizations like the Campaign Legal Center and the Brennan Center for Justice have emphasized the importance of these safeguards. When a president can personally profit from the policies they enact, it undermines democracy. Engaging with certain countries for profit also poses a threat to democratic principles.

    “A blind trust is the gold standard for ensuring that public servants act in the public interest, not for personal gain,” said Meredith McGehee, executive director of Issue One.

    2016: The First Ethical Breach

    When Trump took office in 2017, he refused to place his assets in a blind trust. Instead, he transferred control of the Trump Organization to a revocable trust managed by his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric Trump.

    A revocable trust is not blind—Trump could take back control at any time. He remained the sole beneficiary, meaning he continued to profit from his businesses.

    This move defied precedent. Even Jimmy Carter famously sold his peanut farm to avoid any perception of impropriety. Trump, by contrast, hosted foreign dignitaries at his hotels.

    He jacked up membership fees at Mar-a-Lago. He also saw a flood of government business to his properties. A report by the House Oversight Committee confirmed that Trump pocketed millions from foreign governments during his first term.

    According to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), there were over 3,700 conflicts of interest. These occurred during Trump’s first term alone. That number is not just a statistic; it’s a warning sign.

    “We’ve never seen anything like this level of financial entanglement with the presidency,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of CREW.

    2024: A Second Term, Same Conflicts

    Fast forward to Trump’s second term, and the pattern continues. In 2024, Trump launched or expanded several for-profit ventures, including:

    • Trump Media & Technology Group (Truth Social) is a publicly traded company. He held a controlling stake in it well into his return to office.
    • Trump Mobile, a wireless phone plan launched in partnership with Patriot Mobile and reportedly backed by T-Mobile infrastructure.
    • Licensing deals for fragrances, cryptocurrency tokens, and more.

    In December 2024, Trump transferred shares of Trump Media to a trust controlled by Donald Jr., again claiming this was sufficient to avoid conflicts. But this was not a blind trust, nor did it involve a sale of the assets. According to Reuters, Democratic lawmakers raised concerns about regulatory favoritism, especially in light of T-Mobile’s prior business before Trump-era agencies.

    Meanwhile, AP News reported that Trump Organization inked new deals with foreign investors. One of these deals was a major golf resort agreement in Qatar.

    These transactions were made while Trump once again held the power of the presidency. They raise clear constitutional issues under the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

    How This Breaks Precedent

    Presidents have long understood the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm. George W. Bush and Barack Obama placed their assets into diversified blind trusts or mutual funds. Trump did neither.

    Instead, Trump leveraged his time in office to further entrench his brand and open new revenue streams. The Brennan Center notes that such behavior erodes the norms of democratic governance. Once one president normalizes self-dealing, future presidents may feel entitled to do the same—or worse.

    “The Trump administration has obliterated a long-standing ethical firewall between public service and private profit,” wrote the Brennan Center.

    Why It Matters Now

    Ethical leadership matters, especially in a time of deep public distrust. Trump’s refusal to divest means every policy he enacts is under a cloud of suspicion. Does a trade agreement benefit America—or his hotels? Does a telecom merger face scrutiny—or get a pass because of Trump Mobile?

    This matters not just as a legal issue, but as a moral one. The presidency is not a business venture. It is a public trust.

    As Vox notes in their deep dive on Trump’s for-profit presidency, the risk isn’t just that Trump is profiting now. The danger is that we’ve permanently lowered the bar for what’s acceptable.

    Conclusion

    Donald Trump never truly divested. He rearranged control, rebranded conflict as cleverness, and doubled down on monetizing the presidency. In doing so, he shattered a bipartisan norm that once served as a bulwark against corruption.

    If we want to restore faith in the presidency, we need more than just outrage. We need laws: mandatory blind trusts, enforceable emoluments restrictions, and robust financial disclosure. Because if the president can profit from the office unchecked, then the office no longer belongs to the people.

    Sources

  • Presidents Shouldn’t Get to Undo Progress With a Pen Stroke

    Presidents Shouldn’t Get to Undo Progress With a Pen Stroke

    The United States has a problem. A structural one. A whiplash problem.

    This past week made it impossible to ignore. First, reports surfaced about a potential rollback of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Then came news that the U.S. had pulled out of UNESCO—again. And just to round things out? Federal cuts to public media, already triggering layoffs at PBS and NPR stations across the country.

    It forced me to take a deeper dive. What I found was unsettling. It was not entirely surprising. Our system gives one person, one president, the power to reverse decades of policy and progress. This happens with little to no input from Congress or the public.

    Worse yet, I learned that the U.S. has still not fully committed to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This is a global framework modeled on our own ADA. Somehow, even that fell victim to partisan whiplash.

    This isn’t just bad policy. It’s bad structure. Every new administration brings a chance for hard-won progress to be erased with the stroke of a pen. A new administration comes in with different values. Suddenly, the country’s climate policy, civil rights posture, or global commitments disappear swiftly.

    Case in Point: The Recent EPA Endangerment Finding

    On July 22, 2025, The New York Times reported that the Trump administration is considering rescinding the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Endangerment Finding.” This serves as the legal foundation for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. It was established back in 2009, after a thorough scientific and legal review. Undoing it now would undermine U.S. climate policy just as the world teeters on the brink of irreversible climate damage.

    Let’s be clear. If one president can erase a foundational legal finding like that, it occurs without new evidence. It happens without congressional approval and without public accountability. Then what we have isn’t a democracy. It’s a monarchy with a four‑year contract.

    We left UNESCO… Again.

    Just days ago, the U.S. withdrew, again, from UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. This is not the first time. We left under Reagan. We rejoined under Bush. Left again under Trump. Rejoined under Biden. And now here we are. Again.

    UNESCO isn’t some niche club. It helps coordinate global efforts to preserve culture. It promotes science education. It also protects free expression.

    This is particularly important in marginalized communities around the world. Walking away doesn’t just hurt our international credibility. It also impacts LGBTQ+ educators, disabled students, and scientists in the U.S. who benefit from cross-border collaboration.

    Public Media: More Than TV and Radio

    This political power play extends to PBS and NPR. These are institutions trusted by millions. They are now being targeted simply because one administration disagrees with their editorial mandates.

    • In June, the U.S. House narrowly passed legislation rescinding $1.1 billion in funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports both NPR and PBS
    • The Senate followed suit with a 51–48 vote in mid‑July to finalize the cuts for fiscal years 2026–27
    • According to a recent Star Tribune article Twin Cities PBS (TPT) laid off staff promptly on July 22. They stated they had no choice after the federal funding loss.

    These cuts aren’t abstract they’re local, tangible, and affecting real people right now:

    • Rural and tribal stations are especially vulnerable, with many relying on CPB for over half their budget
    • The National Public Radio editor-in-chief will step down as top staff endure this turmoil

    Why This Matters

    This isn’t just about classical music and Frontline documentaries. Public media are key sources for independent journalism, civic education, emergency alerts, and cultural programming. De-funding them isn’t a symbolic gesture. It leaves news deserts and diminishes local voices. It also disrupts support services for underrepresented communities across formats inclusive of disability and LGBTQ+ issues.

    A Missed Opportunity: The CRPD

    The CRPD, adopted by the U.N. in 2006, cements a full spectrum of rights for disabled people—from accessibility and legal capacity to education and nondiscrimination. Read it here (PDF).

    The U.S. signed in 2009, but failed in the Senate by just five votes in 2012. Opponents claimed it threatened American sovereignty, overlooking that it mirrors our own Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Ratifying the CRPD would:

    • Reinforce civil rights for disabled Americans abroad,
    • Elevate U.S. leadership globally in disability inclusion,
    • Offer solidarity to over a billion disabled people worldwide—even as domestic advocacy continues.

    Yet, just like public broadcasting, that commitment can vanish at the will of one person.

    This Hurts Real People, Not Just Policy Nerds

    These aren’t isolated incidents. They’re symptoms of an administration-centric system that thrives on the absence of guardrails—and here’s who suffers most:

    • LGBTQ+ Rights: Anti-discrimination enforcement under Title IX or federal healthcare regs can vanish or reappear depending on the day’s wind.
    • Public Media Access: Rural disabled listeners lose these lifelines almost overnight. Deaf communities rely on accurate closed captioning. LGBTQ+ youth tune in to inclusive programming.
    • Disability Policy: We haven’t ratified the CRPD. Executive orders often set protections that can be undone. This illustrates how brittle our rights framework still is.

    What Needs to Happen

    Here’s how we fix the structural rot:

    1. Mandate Congressional Approval for Major Executive Withdrawals:
      If presidents need a vote to enter, they should need one to leave.
    2. Codify Protections into Statute:
      The Endangerment Finding, Title IX, ADA interpretations, and more must be hard law, not easily revoked.
    3. Ratify the CRPD
      Transform disability rights from fragile executive fiat to durable international commitment.
    4. Set Up Public Review Mechanisms:
      Major decisions, like de-funding PBS/PBS or leaving UNESCO, should need public hearings and community feedback.

    Final Thought: Rights Shouldn’t Be Reversible

    Rights aren’t privileges. Civic trusts shouldn’t expire when a new President moves in. Whether environmental safeguards, civil protections, public media, or global disability frameworks the template shouldn’t wobble with the Washington weather.

    That’s not democracy. That’s not leadership. It’s short‑term thinking.

    We deserve better. Our communities deserve better. And the next four-year spin cycle shouldn’t decide whether we have them at all.

    Suggested Further Reading

    Sources Cited