|
Trump takes military housing money away to give "Warrior Dividend" falsely stating dividend came from Tariff money  President Trump announced a one-time "$1,776 Warrior Dividend" for service members, but the funds, around $2.6 billion, are being taken from a larger $2.9 billion congressional allocation meant to supplement military housing allowances (BAH), not from new tariff revenue as initially suggested, rebranding existing funds for a direct payment.
Key Details:
In essence, it's a re-packaging and immediate payout of already-approved military housing support, framed as a special bonus by the administration
0 Comments
President Donald Trump revived long-awaited efforts to ease federal restrictions on cannabis, a move that was received with a mix of cautious optimism  On December 18, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research," marking a major shift in federal cannabis policy.
Key Actions of the Order
What the Order Does NOT Do
Economic and Industry Impacts
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Georgia Chancellor Sonny Perdue, have championed the CPHE as a way to break up accreditation monopolies and eliminate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) requirements.  In 2025, Georgia Southern University and Columbus State University became the first Georgia institutions to submit letters of intent to join the Commission for Public Higher Education (CPHE).
The Institutions and Their Rationale
The New Accreditor: CPHE The CPHE was formed in June 2025 by a consortium of public university systems from six Southern states: Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. It aims to provide an alternative to the "legacy" accreditor for the region, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). Why It Is Controversial The agency has drawn significant debate for several reasons:
The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the World Medical Association all agree that gender-affirming care is evidence-based and medically necessary not just for adults, but minors as well.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has expanded lawsuits against two North Texas physicians, Dr. May Lau and Dr. M. Brett Cooper, adding new claims of Medicaid fraud and falsifying medical records to conceal the gender-affirming care provided to minors. Key Details of the Expanded Lawsuits
The lawsuits are a key part of Texas's efforts to enforce its ban on gender-affirming care for minors, a law that has faced significant legal challenges from advocacy groups and medical associations. The state of Florida is suing several leading medical groups for following the scientific consensus that gender-affirming care is safe and life-saving for transgender youth.  Florida's Attorney General, James Uthmeier, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, December 10, 2025, against three major medical organizations that support gender-affirming care for minors: the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Endocrine Society, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Key Allegations and Claims The lawsuit alleges "deceptive practices and racketeering" by the organizations for promoting gender-affirming care for minors despite allegedly knowing about weak scientific evidence and potential risks. Uthmeier claimed the groups were "mutilating kids and misleading families" with treatments. Florida also asserts the organizations used questionable research and that gender dysphoria in youth typically resolves after puberty. The state claims the groups violated racketeering laws by relying on each other's research to reach similar conclusions. Response and Context Major medical organizations generally consider gender-affirming care to be a credible and safe field of medicine for those with gender dysphoria. The lawsuit references the debated UK-based Cass Review, while claims within the lawsuit regarding detransition rates and social contagion have been challenged by studies suggesting social stigma is a primary reason for detransitioning. This lawsuit is part of a larger legal conflict in Florida concerning gender-affirming care, following previous state actions that have faced legal challenges, including a federal judge's ruling in June 2024 that the state's ban on care for minors was unconstitutional. It is not just the American Academy of Pediatrics — the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the World Medical Association all agree that gender-affirming care is evidence-based and medically necessary not just for adults, but minors as well. The New York announcement follows a federal judge's recent approval of a $230 million settlement for the New Orleans Archdiocese and an $880 million settlement by the Los Angeles Archdiocese in late 2024.  The Archdiocese of New York has announced it will negotiate a settlement for approximately 1,300 outstanding sexual abuse claims and is establishing a $300 million fund to compensate the victims.
Key Details of the Settlement Negotiations
The New York announcement follows a federal judge's recent approval of a $230 million settlement for the New Orleans Archdiocese and an $880 million settlement by the Los Angeles Archdiocese in late 2024. Split DC Circuit Allows Trump Administration to Enforce Its Transgender Military Ban For Now12/9/2025 The Ninth Circuit is also weighing a similar challenge to the policy, which bars individuals with gender dysphoria from the military.  A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., has handed the Trump administration a major win in its effort to purge transgender people from the U.S. military, ordering that a nationwide block on the ban remain on hold while the case continues. In a two-to-one, 52-page ruling issued Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the Pentagon can keep enforcing its 2025 policy, which bars transgender individuals from service, while the government appeals a lower court ruling against the ban. The judges dissolved a short-term administrative stay they put in place in March and replaced it with a full stay pending appeal of U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes’s injunction. What the order actually does In March, Reyes issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in Talbott v. United States, finding that the 2025 “Hegseth policy,” named for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, likely violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection because it targets transgender people and appears rooted in hostility, not evidence. She called the government’s reasoning “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.” The Trump Justice Department immediately appealed and asked the D.C. Circuit to stay her ruling. On March 27, the appeals court granted an emergency administrative stay, a temporary pause, while it considered that request. Tuesday’s order dissolves that stay and formally puts Reyes’s injunction on ice for the duration of the appeal. In practical terms, nothing gets easier for transgender troops. The military can continue enforcing the ban because of the administrative stay and a separate U.S. Supreme Court order in a related case, United States v. Shilling. Now, the appeals court has explicitly said the ban should remain in place while the government fights to overturn Reyes’s injunction. The underlying lawsuit itself is not over. The case continues in Reyes’s court, and the D.C. Circuit has already scheduled a separate oral argument on the appeal of her injunction for January 22. “Today, the court declined to halt the unjust discharge process now threatening thousands of transgender service members," National Center for LGBTQ+ Rights legal director Shannon Minter, who represents transgender military members in the case, told The Advocate after the ruling. “On January 22, we will argue before the DC Circuit that District Judge Ana Reyes correctly found that this ban causes irreparable harm and is rooted not in facts, data, or reason—but in animus. Notably, all three judges on today’s panel acknowledged that Hegseth’s ban is driven by animus." A ban framed as “medical,” experienced as exclusion The policy at issue, adopted after Trump returned to office and signed Executive Order 14183, generally bars people with a diagnosis, history, or even “symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria” from serving in the armed forces. In his concurring statement, Katsas portrays the rule as a medical standard rather than an attack on transgender people. He notes that strict medical rules have long governed who can serve and describes the Hegseth policy as part of a series of changes that restricted transgender service in 2018, loosened those limits in 2021, and then tightened them again in 2025. Katsas says the policy “likely does not violate equal protection,” pointing to the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld a state ban on gender-affirming hormone treatment for minors and treated that law as a regulation of medical treatment rather than discrimination based on sex or transgender status. He suggests the same logic applies here, arguing that the policy “classifies based on the medical condition of gender dysphoria.” Even if higher scrutiny is applied, he adds, courts are supposed to show “great deference” to the political branches on military decisions and should not second-guess “complex, subtle, and professional” judgments about readiness, cohesion, and cost. Katsas also downplays the harm to transgender service members, noting that anyone discharged under the policy will receive an honorable discharge and could, in theory, seek back pay or reinstatement later. A dissent focused on "animus" toward trans service members Pillard’s dissent tells a very different story. She starts with the plaintiffs themselves — dozens of transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Guardians with “over 130 years of military service” and more than 80 commendations among them. She stresses that senior commanders testified that allowing transgender troops to serve has had “either no detrimental effect or [a] positive” effect on readiness. She then turns to the political context, including Trump’s Executive Order 14183. In plain language, she writes that the order “vilifies transgender people as dishonorable, dishonest, and undisciplined” and “brands all transgender people, without regard to individual merit, as unworthy to serve in our armed forces solely because they are transgender.” Pillard quotes from Defense Department documents and public statements that, in her view, show the policy is driven by hostility, not neutral medical judgment. One Hegseth memo, she notes, repeats a claim that people “expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s [birth] sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.” Another implementing document lists military virtues — “honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity” — and then declares that anyone with “symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria” categorically lacks those traits. She also points to public comments from Hegseth and official accounts celebrating the ban, including a Defense Department social media post stating, “Transgender service members are disqualified from service without an exemption,” and a Hegseth speech in which he said, “No more dudes in dresses, we’re done with that shit.” For Pillard, those words matter. They show, she argues, that the policy is “based on nothing more than negative attitudes about transgender identity,” not genuine concern for a “strong and ready military.” And she faults the government for failing to identify any specific harm to readiness from letting qualified transgender troops keep serving during the appeal — a showing she says is required to justify emergency relief. “In advocating for a stay, the government does not dispute the animus pervading the Executive Order but shrugs it off as legally beside the point,” Pillard wrote. Lives in limbo, again The ruling comes after months in which transgender troops have already been squeezed between court orders and shifting Pentagon directives. Many service members have seen promotions and transfers stall, health care disrupted, and commanders quietly warn them to brace for separation as the military tries to interpret the new rules and the Supreme Court’s earlier Shilling order. In the meantime, though, Tuesday’s order makes one thing clear: the policy stays in force. “The court still has the opportunity to protect our troops and their families by upholding Judge Reyes’s decision,” Minter said. Accounts of misconduct throughout West Virginia mirror a nationwide problem, as Aramark Corporation has been repeatedly accused of severe health and safety violations, sanitation violations, unauthorized food substitutions, undercooked food, and food shortages where it has done business in correctional facilities across the country.  Aramark Cut Free Prison Meals to Boost Profits. New Suit Claims A new federal class-action lawsuit alleges that the food service company Aramark systematically denies adequate free meals to incarcerated people in West Virginia to compel them to purchase higher-cost food items from the company's own vendors. This alleged scheme has been dubbed "Starve and Charge" by some, highlighting the predatory nature of the practice. Key Allegations
Aramark generated $18.5 billion in fiscal year 2025 revenue and did not respond to requests for comment regarding the West Virginia suit. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, restitution, and an injunction to halt these practices. Decisions About Us, Without Us: Education Dismantling Ignores Tribal Nations  As Congress weighed releasing the Epstein files last week, the Trump administration quietly announced plans to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education — shifting programs that serve Native students to other agencies without consulting a single tribe.
Call it what you want: a strategic distraction, a bureaucratic reshuffling or business as usual for this administration. For Indian Country, it’s a violation of federal law. The announcement on November 24 transferred key programs that serve Native students from the Department of Education to the departments of the Interior and Labor, with additional programs reassigned to Health and Human Services and the State Department. The sweeping overhaul directly affects Native students at every level, from elementary classrooms to tribal colleges and universities. Yet, the administration failed to do the one thing federal law and basic respect require: consult with tribal nations. Tribal consultation — government-to-government dialogue between tribes and federal agencies — simply didn't happen. For Indian Country, this is decisions made about us, without us. The lack of consultation is not an oversight. It is a breach of trust and treaty obligations. It is a breach of trust and treaty obligations. Once again, the federal government is making choices that will shape our children’s education and our future, while refusing to honor the sovereign-to-sovereign relationship it professes to uphold. The American Indian College Fund, one of the strongest national advocates for Native higher education, raised alarms about the plan this week. The college fund noted that these programs — including the Office of Indian Education — play vital roles supporting Native students, Native-serving institutions and the National Advisory Council on Indian Education. Moving programs is not just a matter of shifting files and staff. When authority is transferred without clear planning, without accountability and without meaningful dialogue with the people most impacted, the risk is stark: Native students will pay the price. The federal government holds a unique legal responsibility to provide education to Native people. This obligation isn’t symbolic. It is written into treaties that tribes negotiated in good faith, often ceding millions of acres of land in return for basic services — education among them. Those treaties are the supreme law of the land. But at this moment, as in too many others, the federal government is acting as if those agreements are optional. The administration says the reorganization will improve efficiency and give states more control over school policy. But states are not parties to treaties with tribal nations. They have no legal obligation to us, no trust responsibility and, in many cases, long histories of marginalizing Native students. To outsource federal obligations to states or to agencies unprepared to handle the complexity of Native education is not reform. It is abandonment. Even more troubling is the plan to move oversight of Native postsecondary programs to the Department of the Interior. That department already oversees the Bureau of Indian Education, an agency that struggles with chronic staffing shortages, outdated facilities and persistent academic gaps. Adding more programs — without new resources, clear timelines or tribal input — risks worsening an already fragile system. The administration’s failure to consult tribes is not just a procedural lapse; it reveals a deeper disregard for Native sovereignty and self-determination. Consultation is not a courtesy. It is a legal requirement grounded in decades of federal Indian law and policy. When the government makes decisions that affect tribal citizens, tribal governments must be at the table — not informed after the fact. Time and again, Indian Country has seen what happens when education decisions are made without us. Policies crafted in Washington, distant from our communities, have produced generations of inequity, underfunding, and lost opportunities. Today, Native students remain among the most underserved in the nation. Tribal colleges and universities — institutions created by tribes to provide culturally grounded, community-driven education — operate on shoestring budgets. Many struggle to secure adequate funding year after year. The last thing they need is more instability from federal restructuring pushed through without consultation. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) condemned the plan to dismantle the Department of Education. NCAI called the move reckless, politically motivated and a direct threat to Native students, tribal sovereignty and the federal government’s trust and treaty obligations. “Let us be clear: This is not just an administrative change – it’s an attack on the fundamental right of Native students to a quality education that reflects their identity, history and sovereignty,” NCAI President Mark Macarro said in March 2025. “The trust and treaty responsibilities of the United States are not optional. Dismantling the Department of Education is a betrayal to Native nations and future generations.” NCAI noted that over 90% of Native youth attend public schools, many of which rely on federal resources like Title VI and Johnson-O'Malley funding to support Native language preservation, cultural education and academic success. Eliminating the federal agency responsible for delivering and safeguarding those resources would further marginalize Native students and destabilize tribal education systems. Indian Country has been clear: Any change to our education systems must be developed with tribes, not imposed upon them. Consultation is the bare minimum. True partnership is the standard tribes deserve. Until the federal government lives up to that promise, Indian Country will continue to raise its voice — loudly, consistently and unapologetically. Thayék gde nwéndëmen - We are all related. The wrongful-termination lawsuit seeks full reinstatement as a U.S. immigration judge.  A former federal immigration judge, Tania Nemer, has filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice (DOJ), alleging her abrupt firing was due to political discrimination based on her sex, national origin, and political affiliation. Details of the Lawsuit
Broader Implications Nemer's lawsuit is one of several recent legal challenges by fired DOJ employees that could test the limits of presidential power over the federal workforce and civil rights protections. The case has drawn attention from Senate Democrats who argue that politicizing the immigration bench undermines due process. Other lawsuits have been filed by former DOJ officials who worked on January 6th cases, also alleging wrongful termination and political retaliation by the Bondi-led DOJ. |
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Walk 4 Change. All rights reserved.