New Data Shows the Growing Political Divide Between Gen Z Men and Women

A growing gender divide among Gen Z is reshaping the political landscape, with young men and women increasingly split on everything from Trump to TikTok.

An NBC News Stay Tuned poll, powered by SurveyMonkey, shows that debates over President Trump, billionaire Elon Musk, immigration, and the state of the country have created the most division between Gen Z men and women.

In an overall poll among all adults, 45% approve of Trump’s job performance and 55% disapprove. When narrowing the range to adults between the ages of 18 and 29, the gap widens, with 34% approving and 64% disapproving. When you break these numbers down between men and women, you find that 45% of young men approve of the Trump presidency, compared to only 24% of young women. That is a 21-point difference.

For other generations, there is still a gap between men and women, but it is nowhere near as large. Among adults older than 65, the difference is 13 points. For those between the ages of 45 and 64, the difference is 9 points, and for those between the ages of 30 and 44, the difference is only 7 points.

When it comes to Elon Musk, there is even greater disagreement. While only 41% of the adult U.S. population finds Musk favorable compared to 59% who find him unfavorable, 41% of Gen Z men view Musk favorably, compared to only 20% of Gen Z women.

Gen Z women are also more likely to identify as Democrats — 52% of Gen Z women call themselves Democrats compared to only 30% of Gen Z men. Meanwhile, 38% of Gen Z men identify as Republican compared to 20% of Gen Z women.

Not only are political ideologies different, but policy priorities also differ significantly. The economy is the top priority for the largest number of Gen Z men, while for Gen Z women, it is the current threats to democracy. Interestingly, Gen Z women are more likely to consider TikTok their favorite news source, while Gen Z men favor YouTube.

With the numbers found in this study, it is important to note that women in the U.S. are outpacing men in college completion across every major racial and ethnic group. Today, 47% of women ages 25 to 34 have a bachelor’s degree compared to 37% of men. These numbers have increased by 22 percentage points since 1995.

As the younger generation of progressive women continues to grow and outpace men in higher education attainment, the impact on future elections could be significant. This shift comes at a time when the Trump administration is working to reinforce traditional gender roles, encouraging women to stay home with children and men to serve as primary breadwinners. However, if men increasingly lack the educational credentials needed for high-paying jobs while women surpass them academically, this agenda may face serious practical challenges. 

Additionally, efforts by the administration to incentivize women to have more children represent a broader attempt to exert control over women’s bodies and lives. Yet, the growing political engagement of liberal young women, combined with broad opposition across genders and age groups to Trump-era policies, offers a promising sign for the future direction of the country.

The Growing Threat to Nonprofits Under the Trump Administration

As the Trump administration continues to undermine the internal agencies of our government under the pretext of “government efficiency,” it has now turned its attention to non-governmental organizations, particularly nonprofits advocating for causes that challenge the beliefs of the conservative elite. Political experts express concern that this marks a dangerous descent toward the erosion of American democracy.

“I’m worried that the Trump administration is truly intent on punishing those they perceive as political opponents, even when, like us, we are not politically motivated,” said a representative from a climate-focused organization, who requested anonymity due to fears of retaliation from federal officials.

The primary method of instilling fear comes from “investigations” launched by Trump administration officials targeting various nonprofits. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked $20 billion worth of grants aimed at environmental preservation. Following this, the Justice Department and FBI initiated several investigations into the former grantees, accusing them of “conspiracy to defraud the United States.” However, despite these claims, no legal evidence has been found to substantiate the allegations. The investigations have, nonetheless, been successful in sowing fear among these groups, as many coalitions have dissolved, with organizations withdrawing to avoid association with the targeted entities.

In November, the House passed H.R. 9495, labeled by some as the “Non-Profit Killer Bill,” which would grant the executive branch the authority to dismantle nonprofits in the name of combating terrorism. This has raised fears that the executive branch could soon gain the power to revoke the 501(c)(3) status of nonprofits at will, should the legislation pass the Senate.

These broad and aggressive actions have also deterred many organizations from joining or filing lawsuits, fearing the spotlight and subsequent scrutiny by the Trump administration.

“We’re all hearing about these executive orders that are supposed to be issued, but honestly, we have no idea when or what they’ll target,” said Michelle Jackson, Executive Director of the Human Services Council. “We’ve heard that climate and democracy might be the primary focus, and that creates significant anxiety among all types of nonprofits.”

New York State Attorney General Letitia James is hosting a webinar next Monday to provide guidance and prepare nonprofits for potential federal actions. Over 1,000 organizations have already signed up for the event. James, a frequent target of the Trump administration, was recently the subject of a request for a Department of Justice investigation following her victory in a civil case against him.

These actions are indicative of a growing authoritarian government. A president who seeks to silence any form of dissent not only undermines the principles of a free nation, but also erodes the very fabric of democracy itself. The targeting of nonprofits, civil society organizations, and any group that dares to challenge the administration’s narrative signals a profound shift in the political landscape, one that threatens the checks and balances that have long defined American governance. A free society is built upon the right to speak out against injustice, to stand in opposition, and to advocate for change without fear of retribution.

If these attacks are left unchecked, the ability of organizations, especially those focused on climate, democracy, and social justice, to operate freely will be severely compromised. This is not just a concern for nonprofits but for all Americans, as it sets a dangerous precedent for the future of political dissent and public advocacy. It is imperative that we, as a collective society, stand firm in the defense of our democratic values.

The time to act is now, before the freedoms we hold dear are further eroded. Nonprofits, state and local governments, and citizens alike must unite to oppose these authoritarian moves and ensure that our democracy remains resilient, transparent, and accountable to the people. The preservation of these fundamental principles will determine the future of our nation and whether we can truly remain the land of the free.

Termination of WHI Contracts by Trump Administration Threatens Future of Women’s Health Studies

On April 21, Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) investigators were informed that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will terminate WHI Regional Center (RC) contracts at the end of the current fiscal year, in September 2025.

The Women’s Health Initiative is a long-term national health study founded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Its main areas of research include cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporotic fractures. While WHI continues to focus on strategies to prevent the leading causes of death, disability, and frailty in older women, the breadth and richness of its data allow for the exploration of many more research questions related to women’s health and aging.

The termination of contracts by HHS will significantly impact ongoing research and data collection. The loss or interruption of this data will severely limit WHI’s ability to generate new insights into the health of older women, one of the fastest-growing demographics in the United States.

WHI is credited with many notable achievements, including but not limited to:

  • Over 2,400 scientific publications
  • 342 independently funded ancillary studies
  • Over 5,000 investigators publishing results

The organization is still assessing the full extent of the impact these cuts will have. However, it is certain they will have detrimental effects on research related to the health and aging of postmenopausal women.

“This was really meant as a makeup project for women, because women have been excluded from research for so many years,” said Garnet Anderson, a biostatistician who runs the WHI Coordinating Center.

Senator Patty Murray responded to the announcement, stating, “this is a devastating loss for women’s health research. It’s unacceptable and truly tragic that the Trump administration has decided to pull the plug on one of the most influential studies in the world, one that has led to enormous breakthroughs in preventing chronic disease.”

Earlier this month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which oversees the WHI programs, was given just one week to review 16,000 contracts to identify $2.6 billion in cuts. This represents roughly 35 percent of its total contracts. NIH recently sent a letter to Republican senators pleading for a delay in terminations, warning that “there is no way to implement these cuts without damaging the NIH mission.” Contracts set for termination include those related to microscope maintenance, lab equipment, biospecimen storage, and nursing staff for clinical trials.

These cuts reinforce the Trump administration’s ongoing disregard for women’s health. This is not just an administrative decision with budgetary implications, it is a clear and targeted attack on women, particularly aging and postmenopausal women, whose health outcomes have historically been overlooked in medical research. The Women’s Health Initiative was created to address decades of exclusion and neglect in clinical studies. Dismantling its infrastructure risks reversing that progress.

What makes the timing even more troubling is the administration’s simultaneous interest in policies aimed at encouraging women to have more children. The hypocrisy is blatant. You cannot urge women to expand their families while actively undermining the research and resources needed to ensure their long-term health and safety. Cutting WHI funding sends a message that women’s health only matters when it serves political or economic ends. 

If this decision stands, it will not only harm current research but also silence future discoveries that could save lives. Women deserve better. Science deserves better. And the American public deserves transparency and accountability when decisions of this magnitude are made.

Abortion Data Remains Stable Despite Nationwide Bans

In the past year, we have seen many states take advanced legislative action to ban abortions across the country. Fortunately, access has remained relatively stable in states that have not yet implemented increased restrictions. In 2024, approximately 1,038,100 abortions were provided nationwide, an increase of less than 1% from 2023, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Notably, abortions in states without total bans that were provided via online-only clinics rose to 14% in 2024, representing an increase of approximately 40,000 procedures.

However, this upward trend did not extend to states with strict legislative bans. Florida experienced a particularly sharp decline in the number of abortions provided after a six-week ban went into effect in May 2024. The state recorded 12,100 fewer abortions compared to 2023. South Carolina, which also enacted a six-week ban, saw 3,500 fewer abortions this year.

Colorado and New Mexico, where the right to abortion is protected, also saw slight declines in the number of procedures performed, with each state reporting around 2,400 fewer cases. However, abortion rates in these states remain significantly higher than they were prior to the 2022 overruling of Roe v. Wade.

With the rise of abortion bans across the country, many women now need to travel out of state to access abortion care. This is often due to the chilling effect of laws that make doctors fear criminal penalties for providing abortions. Still, the number of people who crossed state lines for abortion care slightly decreased from 2023, falling from 169,700 to 155,100. The states that absorbed the highest number of out-of-state patients remained consistent: Illinois, North Carolina, Kansas, and New Mexico.

Illinois plays a particularly critical role in abortion access. As a geographical midpoint between the South and Midwest, it is a highly accessible destination for many. The state government, along with local authorities, has provided substantial support to abortion providers and organizations. Notably, the Chicago Abortion Fund is partnering with the state to ensure that patients requiring complex care can receive support in hospitals.

Virginia has also seen an uptick in out-of-state abortion patients, largely due to Florida’s newly enacted six-week ban. Many individuals from southern states, who may have previously traveled to Florida for abortion care, are now turning to Virginia, currently the second closest state where abortions can be accessed beyond six weeks of pregnancy.

The implications of interstate travel for abortion patients are significant. Research shows that economic hardship is the primary reason many individuals seek abortions, indicating they are not financially equipped to raise a child. The burden of traveling hundreds of miles, finding a safe place to stay and recover, and covering the costs of abortion care, especially without health insurance, can be overwhelming. This is yet another reason why restricting access to abortion services often causes more harm than good.

Now, with the United States facing additional barriers to abortion access under a newly elected Trump administration that is openly committed to eliminating reproductive rights, the stakes are even higher. It is critical that advocates, lawmakers, and communities remain vigilant and continue working to protect access to safe, legal abortion care for the health, dignity, and autonomy of all individuals.

Building Feminist Power: Inside the 2025 National Young Feminist Leadership Conference

Students pose in the photo booth at NYFLC (Amelia Crawford)

Armed with the determination to shape their future, over 300 young feminists from across the country gathered at the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference to raise their voices, build power, and fuel a movement. 

The National Young Feminist Leadership Conference (NYFLC), hosted by the Feminist Majority Foundation, brought together student leaders, activists, and changemakers for a weekend packed with bold conversations, hands-on trainings, and an unshakable commitment to justice. From rallying for reproductive rights to strategizing around the Equal Rights Amendment, this was more than just a conference—it was a launchpad for action.

This year, students from 76 schools across 22 states converged in Washington, D.C. for a weekend of powerful workshops, panels, and strategy sessions designed to equip the next generation of activists for the fights ahead. Standout sessions tackled everything from the growing backlash against women, gender, and sexuality studies in higher education, to countering violence against reproductive health providers. Other popular panels explored the political weaponization of the trans community and the far-reaching human rights impacts of U.S. foreign policy.

The weekend culminated with Congressional Visit Day, as more than 100 students turned their passion into power by meeting directly with their representatives on Capitol Hill. The day kicked off with Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D-VA-04), who inspired the students with a powerful speech, followed by a dynamic panel of Hill staff, lobbyists, and feminist activists to demystify the inner workings of Congress and gave students the tools to advocate boldly and effectively for feminist policies where it matters most.

A central focus of the day was the urgent push to enshrine the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the U.S. Constitution. Students came prepared with drafted letters: thanking members that are already champions of the ERA and calling on others to step up and support constitutional gender equality.

After their Congressional visits, students gathered for lunch at the historic Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality National Monument, which was home to the National Woman’s Party for more than 90 years. The students reflected on their experiences over the weekend and mapped out how to carry the momentum back to their campuses and communities.

Virginia State Senator Jennifer Carroll Foy offered the students a stirring reminder of the legacy young feminists carry. “We were built for this moment,” she declared. “We stand on the shoulders of amazing women who came before us, who laid the foundation, who showed us the framework to never back down from a fight, to never say no, to never sit in the back, to make sure our voices are heard.”

As the conference came to a close, students didn’t leave with just inspiration—they left with a mission. Fueled by history and united in purpose, they returned to their campuses ready to organize, mobilize, and build feminist power in every corner of the country.

Deportation Without Due Process: The Trump Administration’s Latest Tactic

We are now witnessing the full effects of the Trump administration’s anti-immigration and mass deportation policies. Following the 2016 initiative to enhance border security with a wall, the administration has shifted its focus to those residing within the country.

These policies have affected a broad range of individuals, including legal immigrants, visa holders, students, and professionals with established ties in the U.S. Concerns have been raised about the legal processes being bypassed in certain cases, leading to deportations of individuals to countries where they have little to no connections. Additionally, questions remain about whether all those affected have committed any crimes.

In one such case, the White House invoked the Alien Enemies Act against a group of Venezuelans, alleging that they were involved with the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua. The Alien Enemies Act can be invoked during a war between the U.S. and “any foreign nation or government” or when an “invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the United States.” The families of these immigrants claim they have been falsely accused and targeted. They were even more shocked and alarmed to learn that their loved ones had been sent to a massive prison in El Salvador instead of being deported to Venezuela.

Organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have documented extreme overcrowding and inhumane conditions in this prison. It is notorious for the brutal treatment of its inmates. Estimates suggest the facility houses between 10,000 and 20,000 prisoners with no privacy or basic comforts. During a visit, CNN reporters observed inmates sleeping on metal bunks without mattresses, sheets, or pillows. They drank water from a large jug, had a single bucket for washing, and shared an open toilet. Prisoners remain inside their cells for 23 and a half hours a day, with only a 30-minute break for group exercise or Bible readings.

An official from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stated that most individuals deported under the act “do not have criminal records in the United States.” Many family members suspect their loved ones were targeted solely due to their tattoos. They report that during questioning by immigration and law enforcement officials, their relatives were repeatedly asked about tattoos and possible gang affiliations, to which they consistently answered “no.”

Joseph Giardinia, an attorney representing one of the deported Venezuelans, Fritzgeralth De Jesus, was just as shocked as the family by the deportation. “With a pending asylum application and a trial, this makes absolutely no sense… I’ve been doing this for years. That’s not how it works.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated last Sunday that the administration did not violate the judge’s order because it was issued after the migrants in question had already left the U.S.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who is presiding over the case, issued a 37-page ruling stating that individuals the Trump administration seeks to deport under the law must be given the opportunity to challenge the government’s claim that they are members of Tren de Aragua. As a result, he blocked Trump from invoking the Alien Enemies Act to justify the deportations and ordered any planes already in the air to return.

The Trump administration has appealed this decision and has also attempted to have Judge Boasberg impeached. In response, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement clarifying that disagreement with a judge’s ruling does not warrant impeachment and that an appeal is the appropriate legal recourse.

Boasberg is also reviewing whether the Trump administration violated his order by failing to recall deportation flights after court decision was issued. He wrote that the administration appeared to have “hustled people onto those planes” to circumvent a potential court order blocking the deportations.

During the appeal hearing, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Patricia Millett remarked that even Nazis were afforded more rights to contest their removal from the United States during World War II than the Venezuelan migrants deported by the Trump administration. The Trump administration did not disprove this claim, responding only that they did not welcome comparisons to the Nazis.

Over 200 immigrants were deported from the United States to this El Salvadoran prison. Now, we await final decisions from both Judge Boasberg and the U.S. Court of Appeals. This case raises critical questions, not only about how the Trump administration respects the rule of law but also about the limits of executive power. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all individuals are innocent until proven guilty. Yet, the Trump administration appears to disregard this fundamental principle if someone has the “wrong tattoos,” speaks the “wrong language,” or comes from the “wrong country.”

The Institute of Peace vs. the Trump Administration: An Overreach of Executive Power

On Monday, March 17, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) gained access to the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) Headquarters building, resulting in a standoff between USIP, DOGE, and law enforcement. Following these events, USIP has filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, DOGE, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and USAID Administrator Kenneth Jackson.

“Attacks culminated in the literal trespass and takeover by force by Defendants, including representatives of DOGE, of the Institute’s headquarters building on Constitution Avenue,” the suit alleges. DOGE gained entrances to the building from a former security guard employed by a private security agency that USIP recently ended their contract with. Employees were forced out of the building while USIP’s leadership barricaded themselves on the building’s fifth floor to resist DOGE’s entry — leading to the law enforcement breaking down the door.   

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell criticized this move by DOGE. “This conduct of using law enforcement, threatening criminal investigation, using armed law enforcement from three different agencies… why … Just because DOGE is in a rush?”

USIP is a congressionally funded think tank established through an act of Congress in 1984. Its primary purpose is to study peaceful resolutions to global conflicts. The organization’s creation is closely linked to the nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Since its founding, USIP has worked to protect and promote American values worldwide, utilizing the United States’ soft power and influence to prevent violent conflicts. It is one of several organizations dedicated to advancing peace and democracy. However, this changed when the Trump administration initiated its shutdown in February, deeming the organization “unnecessary.” He ordered its operations to cease and fired 11 of USIP’s board members, citing noncompliance with his executive order.

USIP has not been the only target of the Trump administration. Other congressionally established organizations focused on global peace and foreign policy research, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which promotes pro-democracy efforts in over 100 countries; the Wilson Center, which specializes in foreign policy research, particularly in Russia and Central Asia; and USAID, have all faced funding freezes, closures, or orders to drastically downsize.

The issue at hand is that USIP is not a federal agency under Trump’s direct control. It was created and funded by Congress, but operates as a private, independent, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization. According to the lawsuit, this distinction means DOGE has no legal jurisdiction to enter USIP’s premises or shut down its operations.

Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, responded to these accusations by stating, “The Trump administration will enforce the President’s executive authority and ensure agencies remain accountable to the American people.” She further asserted that the removal of the 11 board members was conducted “legally.”

Judge Howell denied USIP’s request for a temporary restraining order to reinstate members of the board that Trump dismissed. She reasoned that USIP is a “very complicated entity.” USIP has characteristics of a non-governmental organization while also incorporating aspects of a federal agency—such as being subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. 

This lawsuit raises a critical constitutional question: how much power does the president have over non-federal agencies? The Trump administration appears willing to push every boundary, testing the limits of executive authority. Until the courts resolve these issues, democracy initiatives have been halted worldwide, peace programs have been paused, and non-profit organizations across the country fear they will be targeted next.

Late-Term Pregnancy Loss Surges in the South Amid Medicaid Cut Proposals

The maternal health crisis in the United States is only getting worse—especially in the South. Despite advances in prenatal care, the region continues to face disproportionately high rates of fetal mortality, poor maternal health outcomes, and dwindling access to care. Now, as Congress debates deep cuts to Medicaid, a new analysis of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data underscores just how dire the situation has become. 

According to the CDC, women in the South are now three times more likely to experience late-term pregnancy loss than those in other parts of the country. The average fetal mortality rate for 16 Southern states in 2023 was 6.05 fetal deaths at 20 weeks gestation or later per 1,000 live births and fetal deaths. This compares to an average fetal mortality rate of 5.25 in all other states.

The CDC previously reported that fetal deaths after 24 weeks have been declining since 1990. However, states such as Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas continue to have the highest rates.

This new data emerges as Congress considers significant cuts to Medicaid, a lifeline for low income women seeking healthcare. With Medicaid covering over 40% of births in the U.S. — the highest proportion being in the South — these fetal mortality rates are likely to worsen.

The South consistently lags behind in postpartum health outcomes, including higher rates of postpartum depression, fetal mortality, and a shortage of perinatal health workers. The United States of Care, an organization dedicated to expanding access to quality and affordable healthcare, has compiled this data. They urge employers to improve postpartum care for women insured through their plans and emphasize that sustaining and expanding Medicaid access is crucial for improving maternal health outcomes.

These issues also connect to the fact that Southern states have the strictest abortion bans in the country. Such laws have led to an exodus of obstetricians from the region and discouraged young doctors from training in these programs.

Although congressional Republicans have stated they do not intend to cut Medicaid or Medicare, and their budget proposal lacks direct language indicating such cuts, it does request that the Energy and Commerce Committee (responsible for funding these programs) eliminate $880 billion in “waste and fraud” from the system.

Edwin Park, a health policy expert at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, argues that there is not $880 billion worth of waste and fraud in the committee’s budget. To achieve cuts of that magnitude, reductions in Medicaid funding would be inevitable.

The existing proposals would shift more of Medicaid’s financial burden onto states, as its costs are shared between state and federal governments. A cut of $880 billion would translate to an 11% reduction in Medicaid funding overall, potentially leaving an estimated one million people without coverage and millions more with reduced access to care.

Given the clear link between lack of medical access and increased fetal mortality rates, as well as worsened maternal health outcomes, these proposed budget cuts will only make things worse for mothers, infants and families across the country. But some congressional leaders might argue that the safety, health, and prosperity of women and mothers is the perfect example of “waste and abuse.”

PEN America is Defending Free Speech and DEI on Campus Amid Growing Opposition

In light of the increasing attacks on higher education, PEN America—an organization dedicated to defending free speech and human rights—hosted a Zoom meeting this Monday as part of its campus and higher education initiatives. The event connected campus activists and organizers nationwide who are actively working to protect free expression on their campuses.

Following the executive orders signed by President Trump and the increasing opposition to transgender rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, many universities across the country are rolling back protections for these marginalized communities.

Students from Kentucky expressed concerns about House Republicans seeking to dismantle DEI offices on campuses through bills that prohibit funding for diversity initiatives, and eliminate existing programs under the guise of combating so-called “discriminatory concepts.” In response, students on at least eight campuses in the state have organized marches in support of DEI efforts and in opposition to this legislation. While there is hope that the Democratic governor may veto the bill, the Republican-controlled House and Senate could potentially override the veto and enact it into law.

At the University of South Florida St. Petersburg, students are advocating for the reinstatement of identity flag displays, including Pride flags, Black Lives Matter flags, and national flags. The university president made the decision last year to remove all identity flags, and now the state legislature is considering pending bills H.B. 75 and S.B. 100 on the matter. In response, students are circulating petitions and mobilizing grassroots movements to voice their opposition to these changes to both their schools and state government.

In Texas, students are pushing back against bans on funding for scholarships, research, and academic curricula related to DEI. Universities are being forced to choose between maintaining DEI initiatives or losing critical government funding. With a new University of Texas president recently assuming office, students are waiting to see how he will respond to these developments.

Similarly, in Ohio, state legislators have introduced bills seeking to ban DEI programs, restrict faculty from expressing political views, and prohibit student strikes in higher education. In response, students have launched a direct action campaign in the Senate by attending all legislative events related to anti-DEI measures. They have also recently issued a “Dear Administration” letter outlining their opposition to these proposed changes.

In Iowa, state legislators have removed transgender individuals from the state’s Bill of Rights, prompting universities to follow suit by shutting down LGBTQ+ centers on their campuses. During the meeting, one student activist sought guidance on organizing efforts in the face of opposition from not only university administrations but also state and local governments, as well as certain student leadership groups.

To provide strategic support, PEN America invited several activists and organizers from across Europe to share insights from their own experiences. Representatives from the National Student Organization for Italy (ESU-Italy), the National Alliance for Student Organizations in Romania (ANOSR), the President of the European Student Union (ESU), and the Global Student Forum participated in the meeting to offer their perspectives.

Their key recommendation was for individual student governments and single-issue activism organizations in the U.S. to unite under a common cause and theme. They emphasized that there is strength in numbers and that a unified approach can help build a stronger foundation for advocacy efforts.

This meeting provided a productive and thoughtful space for students to share the challenges they face as free speech on university campuses comes under increasing threat. With the potential for students to face criminal liability, expulsion, and a renewed push from former President Trump to deny funding to schools that permit so-called “illegal protests,” it is more critical than ever for students across the country to unite. By developing cohesive, strategic plans, they can effectively advocate for positive change and resist policies that target vulnerable communities.

Harsh Abortion Restrictions Have Deadly Repercussions in Texas

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion restrictions have spread across the country with devastating consequences. Nowhere is this crisis more apparent than in Texas, where one of the nation’s most extreme abortion bans has turned pregnancy into a life-threatening condition for many.

New data from ProPublica reveals a chilling reality: since Texas’s ban went into effect, cases of sepsis—a deadly infection that can result from delayed miscarriage care—have surged by over 50% among hospitalized women who lost pregnancies in the second trimester. The state has also seen a spike in maternal deaths, a sharp rise in abandoned infants, and multiple preventable fatalities caused by hospitals refusing to provide necessary abortion care.

Following Texas’s 2021 abortion ban, dozens more pregnant and postpartum women died in Texas hospitals than compared to pre-pandemic numbers, excluding COVID-related deaths. These numbers surged in Texas despite the maternal mortality rate declining nationally. With Texas standing out as an outlier in maternal deaths, only one explanation is viable. “This is exactly what we predicted would happen and exactly what we were afraid would happen,” said Dr. Lorie Harper, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in Austin.

Although Texas’s abortion ban includes an exception for “medical emergencies,” ongoing debates persist over what qualifies. The law imposes a cruel and unusual penalty of up to 99 years in prison for any doctor providing an abortion, leaving many women in need of care either denied or delayed treatment due to doctors fearing legal repercussions. This delay in medical intervention often results in women developing sepsis. Sepsis rates were found to be higher and more severe among women who arrived at the emergency room with a living fetus in their uterus.

The Center for Reproductive Rights has filed a lawsuit against Texas over its abortion ban. One of the original plaintiffs, Amanda Zurawski, experienced her water breaking prematurely but was unable to receive abortion care until she became septic, leading to the permanent closure of one of her fallopian tubes.

Kristen Anaya, who conceived through IVF, experienced a similar ordeal. Four months into her pregnancy, her water broke, and she began leaking amniotic fluid, essential for the fetus’s survival. At the hospital, doctors confirmed she had lost all amniotic fluid, but since the fetus still had a heartbeat, they refused to intervene. Anaya then developed an infection, experiencing uncontrollable shaking and a fever—clear signs of sepsis. Despite this, she and her husband were told there was nothing doctors could do because of Texas’s abortion laws.

Doctors forced Anaya to go through a committee to determine if her vitals met the threshold necessary to qualify for an abortion. After gaining approval, she had to wait for paperwork to process before finally being induced into labor. Although a dilation and extraction procedure would have been less strenuous on her body, she was not given that option. Instead, she was warned that going into early labor could cause further complications. A month after the procedure, Anaya was still dealing with medical complications from that traumatic experience.

ProPublica has reported two cases where women miscarried, were denied abortion care, developed sepsis, and died—two entirely preventable deaths, directly caused by Texas’s abortion law and the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

These harsh abortion restriction have also resulted in a 500% increase in the number of abandoned infants in Texas in 2024 alone. While the state typically reports an average of seven abandoned babies per year, this figure has risen to 18. Despite the existence of Texas’ Safe Haven laws, the majority of these infants do not reach emergency services in time, as many are left in dumpsters, bushes, or clothing donation bins.

This rise in infant abandonment is linked to several factors, including restrictive abortion laws, increased deportations, and stringent immigration policies implemented both at the state level and by the Trump administration. Additionally, Texas has the highest rate of uninsured women in the country, exacerbating barriers to reproductive healthcare. Of the 18 infants abandoned in 2024, only two were safely surrendered at designated Safe Haven locations.

Supporters of Texas’s abortion ban claim it is a measure to protect life, yet its real impact has been a surge in preventable deaths, maternal suffering, and infant abandonment—clear evidence that restricting reproductive rights comes at a devastating human cost.

U.S. Catholic Bishops Sue Trump Administration Over Refugee Resettlement Funding Freeze

U.S. Catholic bishops have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its sudden halt to refugee resettlement.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has long provided care for thousands of refugees assigned to them after being granted legal status. In the lawsuit, they claim they have been wrongfully targeted as part of Trump’s broader efforts to eliminate foreign funding, despite being a domestic organization providing services within the U.S. 

“USCCB spends more on refugee resettlement each year than it receives in funding from the federal government, but it cannot sustain its programs without the millions in federal funding that provide the foundation of this private-public partnership,” the lawsuit says. Since the ban, the conference has lost millions in funding, forcing them to lay off more than half of their staff, 50 workers in total. USCCB is arguing that this funding freeze undermines the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers and violates the congressional power of the purse. 

This lawsuit comes in the wake of Pope Francis sending a letter to all U.S. bishops regarding the Trump administration’s mass deportations. Throughout his tenure, Pope Francis has been vocal about prioritizing the needs of migrants, frequently citing the biblical command to “welcome the stranger.”

This is not the first time Trump has clashed with the Pope. In 2016, before his initial presidential victory, Pope Francis criticized Trump’s border wall policy, stating that anyone who wants to build a wall to keep migrants out is “not a Christian.”

The current conflict carries broader implications for the administration, particularly for Vice President J.D. Vance, a proud, newly converted Catholic. The Pope’s criticisms have largely been directed at Vance, who accused U.S. bishops of opposing ICE raids only because they are concerned about “their bottom line.” He implied that the Catholic Church is primarily motivated by financial concerns, rather than genuine care for migrants.

Pope Francis has condemned the administration’s immigration policies, calling the mass deportations a “major crisis.” He warned, “what is built on the basis of force, and not on the truth about the equal dignity of every human being, begins badly and will end badly.”

As of February 3rd, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reported 5,693 deportations in a post on X. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated last week that since Trump took office, more than 8,000 people have been arrested in immigration enforcement actions. Some have been deported, while others are being held in federal prisons or at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

These crackdowns have deeply impacted families across the country. Many parents are now afraid to send their children to school, fearing an ICE raid, while children worry that their parents may be deported while they are in class. With ICE now permitted to enter hospitals and schools, safe havens for immigrants are rapidly disappearing.These policies disproportionately target vulnerable communities, instilling fear in children, parents, teachers, healthcare workers, and immigrant families alike.

Adding insult to injury, the Trump administration has taken to social media to mock the suffering of deported families. They have posted videos titled “ASMR Deportation,” a perversion of the popular trend meant to evoke peace and relaxation through calming sounds. Instead, the administration has twisted it into a cruel joke. 

Beyond the political implications, these actions also expose a deep hypocrisy. Both Trump and Vance claim to be devout Christians, yet their policies directly contradict the fundamental teachings of their faith. If they are willing to disregard the principles of the religion they claim to follow, it raises serious concerns about how they will treat the very laws and democratic institutions they have sworn to uphold.

The Cost of Cutting Foreign Aid

In his first week in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order pausing all federal funding for foreign aid for 90 days. The order, “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” is expected to have detrimental effects on health, safety, and essential services in communities worldwide. 

Following this order, Trump and Elon Musk have dismissed around 60 senior staff members at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the agency traditionally responsible for administering the aid that Trump has frozen. They were placed on leave due to accusations of attempting to circumvent the executive order. When asked about these drastic changes, Trump told reporters, “It’s been run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we’re getting them out, and then we’ll make a decision.”

When the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), run by Musk, attempted to gain access to systems at the agency, top security officials refused to grant entry, even after threats to call the police were made. Those officials have also since been placed on administrative leave. The USAID building has been closed to all other staff with the doors being blocked by yellow “Do Not Enter” Tape and security guards. 

USAID was established in 1961 to provide humanitarian aid to countries in need on behalf of the American government. Its core responsibilities include providing food aid to communities facing starvation, predicting and detecting famines before they escalate, and delivering life-saving medical care in crisis-stricken regions.

Trump has long criticized USAID as a misuse of taxpayer dollars, later singling out LGBTQ initiatives and environmental programs as examples of “waste and abuse.” This led to his decision to pause all international funding for 90 days. While a waiver was eventually granted for some humanitarian programs, many organizations were forced to halt critical operations during the freeze.

This has broader implications for women’s health and family planning initiatives. For almost a decade, Congress has routinely appropriated $607.5 million annually in foreign aid for family planning. This funding was set to provide contraception for 47.6 million women and girls around the world in 2025. On average 120,390 women get contraceptive care each day under US-funded programs. Contraception and family planning is an important form of healthcare for women in underrepresented and marginalized communities, providing women with autonomy over their bodies and opens doors for societal and economic mobility. So, after the 90-day ban is complete, 11.7 million women and girls will have been denied this essential care. 

In Gaza, where humanitarian efforts have already been dire, Palestinians will lose even more funding. Aid was blocked days after Israel banned the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees. In the wake of these recent decisions, many field hospitals, front-line care, and essential medical workers are forced to close and stop supplying aid within the next week. 

“These facilities provide 24/7 lifesaving medical care to roughly 33,000 civilians per month, in a highly dangerous and insecure environment where healthcare infrastructure has been decimated,” the International Medical Corps said in a statement late last month. However, The IMC has updated its website to state that the U.S. government has provided funding to cover hospital services through at least mid-April. The current ceasefire underway in Gaza is fragile, and aid organizations need all the help they can get during this time to lessen the impacts of this war. 

Beyond its humanitarian impact, Trump’s order also weakens America’s global influence. U.S. foreign aid is not just charity, it is a strategic tool that helps the country maintain global leadership. Scaling back aid creates a power vacuum, allowing China and Russia to expand their influence in regions where the U.S. once held sway.

Overall, this order will isolate the U.S. from its allies and will give Russia and China a geopolitical advantage, further justifying the GOP’s push for increased military spending. But most importantly, it will leave countless people without access to healthcare, food, and clean drinking water, creating and furthering global humanitarian crises.

Voice in Sport Holds Briefing in Support of the Fair Play for Women Act

Photo by Jeffrey F Lin on Unsplash

On National Women in Sports Day 2025, the Voice in Sport Foundation held a briefing on Capitol Hill to discuss the Fair Play for Women Act, which would address the inequalities in sports between men and women. VIS is an organization dedicated to providing a voice for women in sports through research, advocacy, and education.

The event was kicked off with a speech by Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), who is the main sponsor of the reintroduction of the bill in the Senate. Murphy made it clear that the inequities between men’s and women’s sports must end, saying that “the major gap in resources and opportunities between women’s and men’s sports is a blatant Title IX violation.”

Title IX is the driving force and foundational aspect of this legislation. Originally enacted in 1972, the act was intended to guarantee equal treatment and opportunities for male and female students and employees in educational settings. It states, “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

When you apply this law to athletics, almost 99% of colleges and universities must comply with Title IX and provide equal opportunities, scholarships, access to equipment, and representation to both men and women in sports.

Surprisingly, although this law was enacted more than 50 years ago, there are many schools that do not currently comply. Nine student-athletes from around the country came to the briefing to confirm this by sharing their personal experiences of inequity in sports. These girls came from schools like Harvard, Georgetown, Howard, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and Elon University. Even though they all come from diverse backgrounds and schools, their stories were all too similar. From gross scholarship inequalities, underpaid and understaffed coaches, and inadequate access to equipment to a blatant misrepresentation of the student population versus participation in women’s sports, these issues persist. This leads to a decreased rate of women working and participating in sports, from high school to the collegiate level.

The Fair Play for Women Act seeks to address these issues in a number of ways:

  • State and intercollegiate athletic associations, including the NCAA, cannot discriminate based on sex;
  • Asserting non-discrimination protections within all school-based athletics, including club and intramural sports;
  • Authorizing the Department of Education to levy civil penalties on schools that repeatedly discriminate against athletes;
  • Establishing a one-stop shop for key athletics data by expanding the scope and detail of reporting by colleges, extending these requirements to include athletics at elementary and secondary schools; and
  • Requiring Title IX trainings on an annual basis for all athletes, Title IX coordinators, and athletic department and athletic association staff.

With these changes, the widespread non-compliance of Title IX from schools across the nation will cease to exist. This bill hopes to hold schools accountable for non-compliance and create ways for more students to be informed on their rights. By ensuring that schools are properly monitored and penalized for violations, this bill aims to create a fairer, more equitable environment for female athletes at all levels. If successfully implemented, this legislation has the potential to transform the landscape of women’s sports, encouraging greater participation, investment, and respect for female athletes across the country.

Trump Offers Buyout to Federal Employees

On January 28, the Trump administration sent a letter to all federal employees outlining a buyout scheme called “Deferred Resignation.” According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, this program would allow federal employees to resign between now and February 6, with the resignation taking effect on September 30. In the meantime, employees would be exempt from all in-person duties while still receiving full pay and benefits, until their positions are officially terminated.

However, employees who choose not to resign face uncertainty regarding their job security. On his first day in office, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce.” This order reclassifies career federal employees as political appointees, stripping them of civil service protections and making them subject to termination at will.

To establish standards for employees under this new classification, the administration introduced four pillars that all federal workers must adhere to. 

First, all employees must return to the office five days a week, as remote work will no longer be permitted. The administration claims it will reward those who “exceed expectations,” though it does not specify how performance will be measured or what consequences await those who do not meet these vague standards. The federal workforce will also be downsized and restructured in an effort to “streamline” agencies, though the extent and nature of these changes remain unclear. 

Concerningly, the administration has stated that employees must be “loyal and trustworthy.” The letter also warns employees that there are no guarantees they will keep their jobs, nor will they be informed in advance if they will be terminated under these new guidelines. This effectively presents federal employees with three options: align yourself with the administration’s ideology, resign and walk away, or potentially lose your job. 

Many employment attorneys are warning federal employees against resigning and accepting this offer from the new administration. Michelle Bercovici, an employment lawyer who primarily represents federal employees, stated, “I’m not aware of any authority that exists right now for OPM to order agencies to give this number of people administrative leave. So I think it is very much possibly setting the stage for challenges because I feel OPM has vastly exceeded their authority.”

Beyond legal concerns, there is growing worry about the impact a mass exodus of federal employees could have on the government’s ability to function. If a large number of employees resign at once, there will inevitably be a gap between their departure and the time it takes for the Trump administration to hire and install replacements. This could lead to an even bigger issue than a federal workforce packed with political loyalists; a federal government that simply isn’t functioning at all.

The government was built on a system of checks and balances and has always been run by civil servants who are accountable to the American people. This buyout offer raises concerns about maintaining those safeguards and the integrity of the Civil Service system. If implemented, it could impact the nonpartisan nature of agencies like the FDA, CDC, DOJ, and FTC, shifting the focus from expertise and experience to political loyalty. This would mark a significant change in how federal agencies operate, with potential implications for their independence and effectiveness.

Trump Reinstates Global Gag Rule, an Assault on Women’s Health around the World

Photo from Unplash

Donald Trump has begun his second term in office by signing an executive order that prevents foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or advocating for access to abortion services in their country. This policy is widely known as “The Global Gag Rule.

Historically referred to as the “Mexico City Policy,” the rule was first introduced by the Reagan administration in 1984. The policy is usually stripped under Democratic administrations and reinstated under Republicans since its initial implementation. Though it has been in effect for only about half of its 41 years of existence, its impact on women worldwide has been significant.

Under traditional Republican administrations, the rule restricts approximately $600 million in international aid annually from going to foreign organizations that support abortion. Adherence to this policy allows foreign NGOs to receive aid specifically for family planning assistance. Under Trump, however, the policy was significantly expanded, requiring compliance for any foreign NGO seeking not only family planning and reproductive health aid but also funding for “maternal and child health, nutrition, HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, neglected tropical diseases, and global health security.”

Foreign NGOs now face a difficult choice: provide access to abortion and abortion-related resources or forgo critical funding necessary for addressing a range of health issues affecting both women and men.

The policy explicitly prohibits “providing advice about or offering referrals for abortion, advocating for changes to a country’s abortion laws, or conducting public campaigns on abortion”. In essence, it “gags” NGOs not only from offering abortion-related services but also from discussing or promoting them.

The consequences of this policy are devastating to the health and well-being of women, children, and families globally. It disproportionately impacts women and girls in marginalized and underrepresented communities. By restricting access to safe abortions, the policy strips women of their bodily autonomy and freedoms, ultimately causing harm and jeopardizing their health.

During the policy’s previous implementation under Trump, there were significant spikes in pregnancy-related deaths, reproductive coercion, and gender inequality. Without essential funding, NGOs dedicated to serving women in high-need communities are forced to shut down or scale back operations. “This leaves women in countries like Uganda, Madagascar, and Zimbabwe without access to contraception, cervical cancer care, and other critical reproductive health services”. These countries, where abortion is already illegal, are particularly affected, as they lose access to even more essential care. Cutting funding doesn’t just reduce abortions—it undermines all forms of healthcare.

Research has shown that the Global Gag Rule has actually increased the number of abortions worldwide, proving it counterproductive to its stated goal. For example, “a quantitative study found spikes in abortion rates among rural women in Ghana during the Bush administration and declines under the Obama administration”. This is likely due to reduced contraception access under the policy, leading to higher rates of unintended pregnancies.

The Global Gag Rule has consistently demonstrated its harmful and counterproductive nature, undermining global health efforts while exacerbating inequities for women and girls. Rather than achieving its stated aim, the policy creates unnecessary suffering and jeopardizes the health and rights of millions worldwide. Ending the cycle of reinstating this policy could pave the way for more effective and equitable global health interventions.

>