By April Ryan, BlackPressUSA

As this nation observes the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, the words of President Trump reverberate. “This country will be WOKE no longer, an emboldened Trump offered during his speech to the recent a joint session of Congress night. Since then, Alabama Congresswoman Terri Sewell posted on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter that “Elon Musk and his DOGE bros have ordered GSA to sell off the site of the historic Freedom Riders Museum in Montgomery.” Her post of little words went on to say, “This is outrageous and we will not let it stand! I am demanding an immediate reversal. Our Civil Rights history is not for sale!”

Also, in the news, the Associated Press is reporting they have a file of names and descriptions of more than 26,000 military images flagged for removal because of connections to women, minorities, culture, or DEI. In more attempts to downplay Blackness, a word that is interchanged with woke, Trump supporters have introduced another bill to take down the bright yellow letters of Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, D.C., in exchange for the name Liberty Plaza. D.C. Mayor Morial Bowser is allowing the name change to keep millions of federal dollars flowing there. Black Lives Matter Plaza was named in 2020 after a tense exchange between President Trump and George Floyd protesters in front of the White House. 

There are more reports about cuts to equity initiatives that impact HBCU students. Programs that recruited top HBCU students into the military and the pipeline for Department of Defense contracts have been canceled.

Meanwhile, Democrats are pushing back against this second-term Trump administration’s anti-DEI and Anti-woke message. In the wake of the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, several Congressional Black Caucus leaders are reintroducing the Voting Rights Act. South Carolina Democratic Congressman James Clyburn and Alabama Congresswoman Terry Sewell are sponsoring H.R. 14, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Six decades ago, Lewis was hit with a billy club by police as he marched for the right to vote for African Americans. The right for Black people to vote became law with the 1965 Voting Rights Act that has since been gutted, leaving the nation to vote without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. 

Reflecting on the late Congressman Lewis, March 1, 2020, a few months before his death, Lewis said, “We need more than ever in these times many more someones to make good trouble- to make their own dent in the wall of injustice.”

The post Trump supporters push for removal of Black Lives Matter Plaza appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Paulo Carvão, Harvard Kennedy School

Imagine a not-too-distant future where you let an intelligent robot manage your finances. It knows everything about you. It follows your moves, analyzes markets, adapts to your goals and invests faster and smarter than you can. Your investments soar. But then one day, you wake up to a nightmare: Your savings have been transferred to a rogue state, and they’re gone.

You seek remedies and justice but find none. Who’s to blame? The robot’s developer? The artificial intelligence company behind the robot’s “brain”? The bank that approved the transactions? Lawsuits fly, fingers point, and your lawyer searches for precedents, but finds none. Meanwhile, you’ve lost everything.

This is not the doomsday scenario of human extinction that some people in the AI field have warned could arise from the technology. It is a more realistic one and, in some cases, already present. AI systems are already making life-altering decisions for many people, in areas ranging from education to hiring and law enforcement. Health insurance companies have used AI tools to determine whether to cover patients’ medical procedures. People have been arrested based on faulty matches by facial recognition algorithms.

By bringing government and industry together to develop policy solutions, it is possible to reduce these risks and future ones. I am a former IBM executive with decades of experience in digital transformation and AI. I now focus on tech policy as a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government. I also advise tech startups and invest in venture capital.

Drawing from this experience, my team spent a year researching a way forward for AI governance. We conducted interviews with 49 tech industry leaders and members of Congress, and analyzed 150 AI-related bills introduced in the last session of Congress. We used this data to develop a model for AI governance that fosters innovation while also offering protections against harms, like a rogue AI draining your life savings.

Striking a balance

The increasing use of AI in all aspects of people’s lives raises a new set of questions to which history has few answers. At the same time, the urgency to address how it should be governed is growing. Policymakers appear to be paralyzed, debating whether to let innovation flourish without controls or risk slowing progress. However, I believe that the binary choice between regulation and innovation is a false one.

Instead, it’s possible to chart a different approach that can help guide innovation in a direction that adheres to existing laws and societal norms without stifling creativity, competition and entrepreneurship.

The U.S. has consistently demonstrated its ability to drive economic growth. The American tech innovation system is rooted in entrepreneurial spirit, public and private investment, an open market and legal protections for intellectual property and trade secrets. From the early days of the Industrial Revolution to the rise of the internet and modern digital technologies, the U.S. has maintained its leadership by balancing economic incentives with strategic policy interventions.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for the development of an AI action plan for America. My team and I have developed an AI governance model that can underpin an action plan.

A new governance model

Previous presidential administrations have waded into AI governance, including the Biden administration’s since-recinded executive order. There has also been an increasing number of regulations concerning AI passed at the state level. But the U.S. has mostly avoided imposing regulations on AI. This hands-off approach stems in part from a disconnect between Congress and industry, with each doubting the other’s understanding of the technologies requiring governance.

The industry is divided into distinct camps, with smaller companies allowing tech giants to lead governance discussions. Other contributing factors include ideological resistance to regulation, geopolitical concerns and insufficient coalition-building that have marked past technology policymaking efforts. Yet, our study showed that both parties in Congress favor a uniquely American approach to governance.

Congress agrees on extending American leadership, addressing AI’s infrastructure needs and focusing on specific uses of the technology – instead of trying to regulate the technology itself. How to do it? My team’s findings led us to develop the Dynamic Governance Model, a policy-agnostic and nonregulatory method that can be applied to different industries and uses of the technology. It starts with a legislative or executive body setting a policy goal and consists of three subsequent steps:

1. Establish a public-private partnership in which public and private sector experts work together to identify standards for evaluating the policy goal. This approach combines industry leaders’ technical expertise and innovation focus with policymakers’ agenda of protecting the public interest through oversight and accountability. By integrating these complementary roles, governance can evolve together with technological developments.
2. Create an ecosystem for audit and compliance mechanisms. This market-based approach builds on the standards from the previous step and executes technical audits and compliance reviews. Setting voluntary standards and measuring against them is good, but it can fall short without real oversight. Private sector auditing firms can provide oversight so long as those auditors meet fixed ethical and professional standards.
3. Set up accountability and liability for AI systems. This step outlines the responsibilities that a company must bear if its products harm people or fail to meet standards. Effective enforcement requires coordinated efforts across institutions. Congress can establish legislative foundations, including liability criteria and sector-specific regulations. It can also create mechanisms for ongoing oversight or rely on existing government agencies for enforcement. Courts will interpret statutes and resolve conflicts, setting precedents. Judicial rulings will clarify ambiguous areas and contribute to a sturdier framework.

Benefits of balance

I believe that this approach offers a balanced path forward, fostering public trust while allowing innovation to thrive. In contrast to conventional regulatory methods that impose blanket restrictions on industry, like the one adopted by the European Union, our model:

• is incremental, integrating learning at each step.
• draws on the existing approaches used in the U.S. for driving public policy, such as competition law, existing regulations and civil litigation.
• can contribute to the development of new laws without imposing excessive burdens on companies.
• draws on past voluntary commitments and industry standards, and encourages trust between the public and private sectors.

The U.S. has long led the world in technological growth and innovation. Pursuing a public-private partnership approach to AI governance should enable policymakers and industry leaders to advance their goals while balancing innovation with transparency and responsibility. We believe that our governance model is aligned with the Trump administration’s goal of removing barriers for industry but also supports the public’s desire for guardrails.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Paulo Carvão, Harvard Kennedy School

Read more:

• Tech law in 2025: a look ahead at AI, privacy and social media regulation under the new Trump administration
• Reining in AI means figuring out which regulation options are feasible, both technically and economically
• How can Congress regulate AI? Erect guardrails, ensure accountability and address monopolistic power

Carvão advises tech startups and invests in venture capital.

Feature Image: One of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders in his second term called for developing an AI action plan. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The post Balanced approach to AI governance: A path for innovation, accountability appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Ill.) delivered a sharp and relentless rebuttal to former President Donald Trump’s chaotic address to Congress on Tuesday night, warning that his economic policies and erratic leadership will leave everyday Americans footing the bill for a billionaire-friendly agenda. Slotkin, the newly elected senator from Illinois—one of the key states Trump flipped in 2024—blasted the former president’s approach to governance, calling his economic promises “a reckless and chaotic gamble” that would “walk us into a recession.” “Trump is on the hunt to find trillions of dollars to pass on to the wealthiest of Americans, and to do that, he’s going to make you pay,” she said, tearing into his trade policies, rising prescription drug costs, and ballooning national debt.

Slotkin also aimed the Trump administration’s sweeping federal layoffs, which she called a “mindless” purge of critical workers. “The firing of people who protect our nuclear weapons, keep our planes from crashing, and conduct life-saving research—only to rehire them two days later? No CEO in America could do that without being summarily fired,” she said. Speaking from Wyandotte, Michigan, Slotkin positioned herself as a voice for working-class Americans frustrated by rising costs and political dysfunction. She called out Trump’s coziness with billionaires like Elon Musk, warning that their unchecked influence could jeopardize everything from Social Security to private financial data. “Is there anyone comfortable with Musk and his gang of 20-year-olds using their own servers to poke through your tax returns, your health information, and your bank accounts?” she asked.

Slotkin didn’t hold back on foreign policy either, skewering Trump for his embarrassing Oval Office clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “That wasn’t just a bad episode of reality TV,” she said. “It summed up Trump’s whole approach to the world. Cozy up to dictators like Vladimir Putin, kick our allies like the Canadians in the teeth, and call it strategy.” The Illinois senator, a former CIA analyst, framed the stakes as a choice between responsible leadership and reckless upheaval. “America wants change, but there’s a responsible way to make change and a reckless way,” she said. “We can make that change without forgetting who we are as a country and as a democracy.” Closing her remarks with a call to action, Slotkin urged Americans not to disengage. “Hold your elected officials, including me, accountable,” she said. “Go to town halls. Demand action. Doom scrolling doesn’t count—I’m putting that on a pillow.”

The post Senator blasts Trump’s economic plan as reckless and chaotic appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

Just before President Donald Trump took the podium to deliver his address to a joint session of Congress, Democratic Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett sent a message loud and clear: He is “not like us.” Crockett, dancing and lip-syncing to Kendrick Lamar’s culture-defining hit, later punctuated her defiance with a pointed jab. “Well… the State of the ‘DisUnion’ will begin shortly,” Crockett noted. “I’m gonna be in attendance.” It was just one of many signs of resistance from Democrats who braced for what they predicted would be an address filled with misinformation and political grandstanding. Undeterred, Crockett implored her millions of social media followers, “Do not watch.”

The defiance extended beyond rhetoric. House Democratic leadership refused to participate in the traditional escort committee that brings the president into the House chamber, a symbolic rebuke of Trump’s presidency. A spokesperson for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said the move “speaks for itself.” It was a notable departure from the morning’s strategy session, during which Jeffries and his leadership team urged House Democrats to focus on Americans suffering under Trump’s policies. However, when Trump took the stage, unity gave way to unfiltered outrage. Trump entered the chamber, flanked by Speaker Mike Johnson, determined to present his administration as a sweeping success. The reality outside his rhetoric told a different story.

Days before the address, Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance engaged in a heated and globally embarrassing Oval Office confrontation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, rocking the international community. The exchange reinforced concerns that Trump is abandoning Ukraine in favor of his well-documented admiration for Russian leader Vladimir Putin. On the domestic front, his administration has dismantled civil rights protections, slashed federal jobs, and thrown millions into uncertainty. Yet, standing before Congress, Trump claimed that more Americans believe the country is on the right track for the first time in modern history. “Now, for the first time in modern history, more Americans believe that our country is headed in the right direction than the wrong direction,” Trump declared. That was false.

Of the eighteen “right track/wrong track” polls archived by RealClearPolitics since Trump took office, only two showed more respondents believing the country was moving in the right direction—one by Rasmussen with a one-point margin and another by Emerson College with a four-point edge. Meanwhile, sixteen other polls showed the opposite, some revealing double-digit margins. The RealClearPolitics average showed a nearly nine-point lead for “wrong track.” Yet Trump stood before the American people and claimed victory. The speech had barely begun when Rep. Al Green of Texas stood in the aisle, waving his cane at the president. Lawmakers responded with cheers and boos, forcing Speaker Johnson to issue repeated warnings for decorum.

“Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of the quorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the Sergeant at Arms to restore order to the joint session,” Johnson declared. He then ordered Green’s removal from the chamber. While Republicans erupted in applause throughout Trump’s speech, Democrats sat stone-faced. Some took it further, removing their jackets to reveal messages emblazoned in white on their backs. Some read, “Resist.” Florida Rep. Maxwell Frost’s shirt said, “No More Kings.” At the start of Trump’s speech, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan held up a whiteboard with the words, “That’s a Lie.”

Some Democrats refused to attend the address altogether. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York announced her absence on social media. “I’m not going to the Joint Address. I will be live posting and chatting with you all here instead. Then going on IG Live after,” she wrote. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut also dismissed Trump’s speech as a “MAGA pep rally” and chose to spend the evening at an event with MoveOn. “We have to fight every single day, every single day,” Murphy proclaimed. Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont also made her position clear. “I watched him take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, and all he did was spew lies, stoke division, and make no effort to unify our country. I won’t sit and watch him lie to the American people again,” she asserted. Despite his claims, Trump failed to offer any real economic plan.

He blamed Biden for inflation while ignoring that his tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico are set to raise prices even further, a reality already confirmed by economists. Yet he promised “dramatic and immediate relief” while enacting policies that would do the opposite. At one point, Trump took credit for ending the so-called “weaponized government,” portraying himself as the victim. “And we’ve ended weaponized government where, as an example, a sitting president is allowed to viciously prosecute his political opponent. Like me,” he said. Republicans cheered. Beyond the speech’s theatrics, the real story remains the fallout of Trump’s second term. Civil rights protections have been dismantled. Federal workers have been fired en masse. Veterans and people with disabilities have been left scrambling. MAGA loyalists have received unchecked power. And yet, the president stood before Congress and told Americans everything was fine. Rep. Crockett, however, was not having it.

She fired back without hesitation when asked if she had anything to say to Trump. “Grow a spine and stop being Putin’s hoe,” Crockett railed, using language that proved common in an earlier meeting between CBC members and Black journalists. The apparent divide in the chamber became more undeniable as television cameras panned across the room. Republicans stood, grinning, basking in Trump’s promises. Democrats, many dressed in bright pink as a deliberate display of protest, sat in silence. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández of New Mexico, chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, explained the color choice. “Pink is a color of power and protest.,” she said “It’s time to rev up the opposition and come at Trump loud and clear.” By the time Trump’s speech ended, one thing was clear. Democrats aren’t backing down. They aren’t standing idly by as Trump and his enablers attempt to rewrite reality. They aren’t going to pretend that what’s happening to this country is normal. As Trump walked out of the chamber, the message left behind by Democrats and on the backs of those standing in defiance said it all. “Resist.”

The post Democrats defy Trump’s address as chaos erupts in Congress appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Matthew Borus, Binghamton University, State University of New York

An estimated 20% to 25% of Americans have a disability of some kind, including physical, sensory, psychological and intellectual disabilities.

Disability experts, myself included, fear that the Trump administration is creating new barriers for disabled people to being hired at a job, getting a quality education and providing for basic needs, including health insurance.

Here are four key areas of disability policy to watch over the coming years.

1. Rights at work

The Americans with Disabilities Act, which became law in 1990, requires that employers with more than 15 employees not discriminate against otherwise qualified candidates on the basis of their disability. It also requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to disabled workers. This means, for instance, that a new or renovated workplace should have accessible entrances so that a worker who uses a wheelchair can enter.

Despite these protections, I have spoken to many disabled workers in my research who are reluctant to ask for accommodations for fear that a supervisor might think that they were too demanding or not worth continuing to employ.

Trump’s actions in his first days in office have likely reinforced such fears.

In one of the many executive orders Trump signed on Jan. 20, 2025, he called for the relevant government agencies to terminate what he called “all discriminatory programs,” including all diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility policies, programs and activities that Trump deems “immoral.”

The next day, Trump put workers in federal DEIA and accessibility positions on administrative leave.

The following week, a tragic plane crash outside Washington, D.C., killed 67 people. Trump, without any evidence, blamed the crash on unidentified disabled workers in the Federal Aviation Administration, enumerating a wide and seemingly unrelated list of disabilities that, in his mind, meant that workers lacked the “special talent” to work at the FAA.

Advocates quickly pushed back, pointing out that disabled workers meet all qualifications for federal and private sector jobs they are hired to perform.

2. The federal workforce

Many government disability programs have complex rules designed to limit the number of people who qualify for support.

For instance, I study supplemental security income, a federal program that provides very modest cash support – on average, totaling US$697 a month in 2024 – to 7.4 million people who are disabled, blind or over 65 if they also have very low income and assets.

It can take months or even years for someone to go through the process to initially document their disability and finances and show they qualify for SSI. Once approved, many beneficiaries want to make sure they don’t accidentally put their benefits at risk in situations where they are working very limited hours, for example.

To get answers, they can go to a Social Security office or call an agency phone line. But there are already not enough agency workers to process applications or answer questions quickly. I spoke in 2022 with more than 10 SSI beneficiaries who waited on hold for hours while they tried to get more information about their cases, only to receive unclear or conflicting information.

Such situations may grow even more severe, as Trump and billionaire Elon Musk try to eliminate large numbers of federal employee positions. So far, tens of thousands of federal workers have been laid off from their jobs in 2025. More layoffs may be coming – on Feb. 12, 2025, Trump instructed federal agency heads to prepare for further “large-scale reductions in force.”

At the same time, multiple Social Security Administration offices have also been marked for closure since January 2025. An overall effect of these changes will be fewer workers to answer questions from disabled citizens.

3. Educational opportunities

Students with disabilities, like all students, are legally entitled to a free public education. This right is guaranteed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, passed in 1975. IDEA is enforced by the federal Education Department.

But Trump is reportedly in the process of dismantling the Education Department, with the goal of eventually closing it. It is not clear what this will mean for Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act enforcement, but one possibility is laid out in the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership, a policy blueprint with broad support in Trump’s administration.

Project 2025 proposes that Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act funds “should be converted into a no-strings formula block grant.” Block grants are a funding structure by which federal funds are reduced and each state is given a lump sum rather than designating the programs the funds will support. In practice, this can mean that states divert the money to other programs or policy areas, which can create opportunities for funds to be misused.

With block grants, local school districts would be subject to less federal oversight meant to ensure that they provide every student with an adequate education. Families who already must fight to ensure that their children receive the schooling they deserve will be put on weaker footing if the federal government signals that states can redirect the money as they wish.

4. Health care

Before President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, many disabled people lived with the knowledge that an insurer could regard a disability as a preexisting condition and thereby deny them coverage or charge more for their insurance.

The ACA prohibited insurance companies from charging more or denying coverage based on preexisting conditions.

Republicans have long opposed the ACA, with House Speaker Mike Johnson promising before the 2024 election to pursue an agenda of “No Obamacare.”

About 15 million disabled people have health insurance through Medicaid, a federal health insurance program that covers more than 74 million low-income people. But large Medicaid cuts are also on the Republican agenda.

These deep cuts might include turning Medicaid into another block grant. They could also partly take the form of imposing work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries, which could serve as grounds on which to disqualify people from receiving benefits.

While proponents of work requirements often claim that disabled people will be exempt, research shows that many will still lose health coverage, and that Medicaid coverage itself often supports people who are working.

Medicaid is also a crucial source of funding for home- and community-based services, including personal attendants who help many people perform daily activities and live on their own. This helps disabled people live independently in their communities, rather than in institutional settings. Notably, Project 2025 points to so-called “nonmedical” services covered under Medicaid as part of the program’s “burden” on states.

When home- and community-based services are unavailable, some disabled people have no options but to move into nursing homes. One recent analysis found that nursing homes housed roughly 210,000 long-term residents under age 65 with disabilities. Many nursing facilities are understaffed, which contributed to the brutal toll of the COVID-19 pandemic in nursing homes.

In response to both the pandemic and years of advocacy, the Biden administration mandated higher staffing ratios at nursing homes receiving Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. But Republicans are eyeing repealing that rule, according to Politico’s reporting.

Daunting task

Tracking potential changes to disability policy is a complicated endeavor. There is no federal department of disability policy, for example.

Instead, relevant laws and programs are spread throughout what we often think of as separate policy areas. So while disability policy includes obvious areas such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is also vitally relevant in areas such as immigration and emergency response.

These issues of health care, education and more could impact millions of lives, but they are far from the only ones where Trump administration changes threaten to harm disabled people.

Different programs have their own definitions of disability, which people seeking assistance must work to keep track of.

This was a daunting task in 2024. Now it may become even more difficult.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Matthew Borus, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Read more:

• Why including people with disabilities in the workforce and higher education benefits everyone
• Trump’s claims of vast presidential powers run up against Article 2 of the Constitution and exceed previous presidents’ power grabs
• Parents with disabilities have faced discrimination for years in the US, but new rules will help ensure that child welfare systems treat them more fairly

Matthew Borus received funding in the past from ARDRAW, a small grant program for graduate students working on disability research. The program was run by Policy Research, Inc. and funded by the Social Security Administration. The opinions and conclusions expressed here are solely the author’s.

Feature Image: Disabled people’s employment rights and access to free health care are among the policy issues that the Trump administration is aiming to change. Catherine McQueen/Moment/Getty Images

The post Trump’s changes to federal disability policy: A threat to millions appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Tom Sapsford, Boston College

A few weeks into his second term, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders restricting the rights of trans workers in the federal government. The first was a renewal of the ban on transgender people joining the U.S. military – initially signed in 2017 and later repealed by President Joe Biden in 2021. The second was a more sweeping memo that recognizes only two sexes in federal records and policies.

In the ancient Roman world, which I study, biological sex and gender expression did not always line up as neatly as the president is demanding to see in today’s government.

In antiquity, there were masculine women, feminine men and people who altered their bodies to match their gender expression more closely. In particular, two figures – the cinaedus and the gallus – provide examples of men whose effeminate behavior and modified anatomies were striking yet still integrated into Roman society.

The cinaedus and the commander in chief

In ancient Rome, some men who did not fit neatly within gender categories were called “cinaedi.” They were usually adult males singled out for their extreme effeminacy and nonnormative sexual desires.

The cinaedus was already a recognizable figure in ancient Greece and was first mentioned in the fourth century B.C. by Plato. He says little more than that a cinaedus’ life was terrible, base and miserable. Later Roman authors provide more detail.

Martial, a Roman poet writing in the first century A.D., for instance, describes a cinaedus’ dysfunctional penis as like a “soggy leather strap” in one epigram. In the same century, the Roman novelist Petronius has a cinaedus suggest that both he and his fellows have had their genitals removed.

In a fable by Phaedrus, also written in the first century A.D., a barbarian is threatening the troops of the military leader, Pompey the Great. All are afraid to challenge this fierce opponent until a “cinaedus” volunteers to fight.

The cinaedus is described as a soldier of great size but with a cracked voice and mincing walk. After pleading permission in a stereotypically lisping manner from Pompey the Great, his commander in chief, the cinaedus steps into battle. He quickly severs the barbarian’s head and, with army agog, is summarily rewarded by Pompey.

In Phaedrus’ fable, the cinaedus is untrustworthy. He is described as having stolen valuables from Pompey early on in the tale and then later swears on oath that he hasn’t.

Yet the moral of Phaedrus’ fable of the soldier-cinaedus is that such deceptive appearances and actions might actually be strategically successful in military matters. The cinaedus has an edge over Pompey’s other soldiers precisely due to his disarming effeminacy. In the tale, this doesn’t at all diminish his skills as a lethal fighter. Rather, the cinaedus’ effeminacy combined with his martial valor ultimately lead to the barbarian’s defeat.

Trans priests and the safety of the Roman state

The galli, another group that lived in the heart of the city of Rome, also blurred gender roles. They were males who had castrated their genitalia in dedication to the Great Mother goddess Cybele, who was their protector.

As reported by several ancient sources, including Cicero and Livy, in 204 B.C. the Roman state consulted a set of prophetic scrolls called the Sibylline Oracles on how best to respond to the pressures it faced as a result of the Second Punic War – Rome’s prolonged conflict with Carthage and its fierce military general, Hannibal.

The oracles’ answer – and Rome’s subsequent action – was to import a strange and foreign religious order from Asia Minor into the heart of Rome, where it would remain for the next several hundred years.

The temple of Cybele was located on the Palatine Hill, next to several important shrines, monuments and later even the residence of the Emperor Augustus. As the poet Ovid tells us, each year during Cybele’s festival the galli would proceed through the streets of Rome carrying a statue of the goddess, while ululating wildly in time with the sound of wailing pipes, banging drums and crashing cymbals.

More so than the figure of the cinaedus, ancient literary sources present the galli’s gender difference similarly to modern-day trans women, often using feminine pronouns when describing them.

For instance, the poet Catullus details the origin story of the galli’s founder figure, Attis, who was Cybele’s mythical consort and chief priest. Notably, Catullus switches from using masculine adjectives to feminine ones at the very moment of Attis’ self-castration.

Similarly, in his novel, “The Golden Ass,” the second century A.D. writer Apuleius has one gallus address his fellow devotees as “girls.”

While several ancient sources mock these figures for their gender-nonconforming appearance and behaviors, it is nevertheless evident that the galli held a sacred place within the Roman state. They were viewed as being important to Rome’s continued safety and prominence.

For example, Plutarch in his “Life of Marius” relates that a priest of the Great Mother came to Rome in 103 B.C. to convey an oracle that the Romans would be triumphant in war. Though believed by the Senate, this priest, Bataces, was mocked mercilessly in the plebian assembly. However, when the individual who had insulted Bataces swiftly died of a terrible fever, the plebians too gave this oracle and the goddess’s prophetic powers their backing.

Today’s trans issues

Behind Trump’s executive orders are two assertions: first, that transgender identity is a form of ideology: a modern invention created to justify deviance from one’s sex as assigned at birth; second, that transgender identity is both a form of disease and of dishonesty.

The reissued military ban doubles down on the perceived dishonesty of trans folk, contrasting it with the ideals and principles needed for combat. The order states that the “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.”

Taking a long view of gender diversity across millennia has shown me that many individuals in antiquity certainly lived lives outside of the clear-cut formula that the Trump administration has stated, namely that “women are biologically female and men are biologically male.”

Gender diversity is not simply a late 20th- or early 21st-century phenomenon. However, the fear that gender-diverse people are diseased and devious likewise arises in several ancient sources. In the classical world, these fears seem limited to the realms of satire and fantasy; in our current time, we are seeing these fears being harnessed for government policy.

This article incorporates material from a story originally published on Aug. 1, 2017.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Tom Sapsford, Boston College

Read more:

• Ukraine war: Trump is not trying to appease Putin – he has a vision of a new US-China-Russia order
• A trans soldier in the ancient Roman army?
• Trump’s military policy overlooks data on why transgender troops are fit to serve

Tom Sapsford is affiliated with the Lambda Classical Caucus. 

Feature Image: A relief showing a gallus making sacrifices to the goddess Cybele and Attis. Sailko via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

The post Ancient Rome offers a glimpse into the politics of gender appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

As the Trump administration prepares to close out its first full month back in power, the fears many Americans expressed about Project 2025 are rapidly becoming frightening realities. House Republicans unveiled a budget resolution on Wednesday that slashes federal spending by $2 trillion while providing up to $4.5 trillion in tax cuts—largely benefiting the wealthy and major corporations. The budget, introduced by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, sets the stage for a massive GOP-led legislative push to pass President Donald Trump’s economic agenda. If the committee and the full House approve, Republicans could move forward with a party-line reconciliation bill that would bypass Senate filibuster rules and enact sweeping tax and spending changes.

At the heart of the plan is the dramatic redistribution of resources, cutting programs that millions of Americans rely on while extending tax breaks for the richest households and businesses. The resolution grants $110 billion for border security and immigration enforcement, significantly less than the $175 billion allocated in the Senate’s version. Meanwhile, it raises the debt limit by $4 trillion in anticipation of a looming deadline later this year that could force Congress to act or risk defaulting on the nation’s obligations.

Deep Cuts to Healthcare, Food Assistance, and Education

The budget’s reconciliation instructions call for slashing $2 trillion in mandatory spending—a category that includes Medicare, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and other essential safety-net programs. If lawmakers fail to achieve those cuts, the resolution mandates a proportional reduction in tax cuts. However, House conservatives have already demanded even steeper spending reductions.    The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities described the proposal as “an extreme giveaway to the wealthy at the expense of families who already have a hard time making ends meet.” The nonpartisan research group warned that the GOP plan would increase healthcare costs, make college more expensive, deepen economic inequality, and exacerbate poverty for tens of millions of Americans.

“For weeks, House Republicans have been circulating proposals that would take health coverage and food assistance away from millions of people and raise the cost of student loans to offset part of the cost of extending the expiring 2017 tax cuts,” officials at the center stated. “More than 36 million people could lose Medicaid coverage, over 40 million could see reductions in SNAP benefits, and millions of students may face higher borrowing costs to pay for college.” These proposals would have devastating real-world consequences. For families dependent on Medicaid, it could mean the inability to afford cancer treatments, insulin for diabetes, or basic medical care. Cuts to food assistance would force parents to skip meals so their children can eat. Those in rural communities and communities of color, who already face higher poverty rates, would be hit especially hard.

Additionally, the GOP budget could shift enormous costs to state, local, and tribal governments, already experiencing financial strain. Many of these governments would be unable to cover the gaps, leading to more severe economic consequences for low-income Americans.

Tax Breaks for the Wealthy While Millions Struggle

The spending cuts outlined in the resolution mirror the priorities of Project 2025, the right-wing policy blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation. While Trump distanced himself from the plan on the campaign trail, its core elements are now being pushed through Congress. One of the most alarming aspects is the proposal to impose lifetime caps on Medicaid benefits, which could leave millions without health coverage. The budget’s tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. The plan seeks to extend the expiring 2017 tax cuts for another decade, adding trillions to the deficit. Households earning over $743,000 per year, the top 1%—would receive an average tax break of $62,000 annually. Meanwhile, working-class Americans would see higher healthcare, education, and food costs.

Despite prioritizing tax relief for the ultra-rich, the budget proposal fails to extend the Affordable Care Act’s premium tax credits, which have helped 20 million Americans afford health insurance since 2021. If these credits expire, premiums will skyrocket for millions, including at least 3 million small business owners and self-employed workers. The Food Research and Action Center has also raised alarms about the proposal’s drastic changes to food assistance programs. The budget seeks to impose harsher work requirements for non-disabled adults without dependents and eliminate state flexibility in determining food stamp eligibility. Additionally, it aims to roll back updates to the Thrifty Food Plan, which modernized the SNAP benefits formula after decades of being outdated.

Republicans Push Forward Despite Widespread Opposition

The House GOP’s budget resolution now heads to the Budget Committee, where Republicans will need a majority vote to advance it to the full House. With a razor-thin majority of 218-215, they have little room for defections. The measure is unlikely to receive any Democratic support. Senate Republicans are also moving forward with their version of the budget, which includes more funding for border security. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., criticized House Republicans for cutting immigration enforcement funding to $110 billion instead of the $175 billion requested by Trump’s border czar Tom Homan. “They’re not listening to the administration as to what they need,” Graham said. “Now is not the time to go on the cheap to secure the border.”

Meanwhile, Democrats have blasted the GOP plan as a blatant attack on working-class Americans. “Republicans are pulling a fast one on working people by reaching into their pockets to pay for billionaire handouts,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. “Make no mistake: this GOP plan will raise the cost that American families pay for groceries, health care, and getting an education—all to fund tax cuts for the ultra-rich.” Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, warned that the Republican proposal would drive up the national debt while making life harder for middle-class families. “This Republican plan isn’t just bad policy—it betrays the middle class,” Boyle said. “Their proposal slashes critical programs that millions of hardworking Americans rely on, all while adding trillions of dollars to the deficit to bankroll massive giveaways for giant corporations and billionaires like Elon Musk.”

The post House GOP pushes forward extreme budget plan appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Alexa Helwig, alexa.helwig@mail.house.gov

Congressman Greg Landsman (D-OH-01) while President Trump’s proposal for the United States to “take over” the Gaza Strip may or may not be serious, he still is an unserious person and it’s an unserious plan. 

“There are three huge problems with his ‘proposal,’ Landsman said. “First, he’s added a third list of places he would send American troops without any real consideration – Greenland, Panama and now Gaza.

“Second, the path to peace is through Saudi Arabia and other Arab Nations who will not work with us or Israel if this is the plan. The effort to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel, bring a coalition of Arab nations together to help rebuild Gaza and establish a legitimate governing authority in Gaza, is essential. Trump’s rhetoric undermines this path to peace.

“Third, we’re in the middle of a ceasefire and need that to hold so every single hostage, including Americans, are brought home.”

Landsman has traveled to Israel and the Middle East over a dozen times, including four times in his first term as a member of Congress. He also worked in Israel from 2015-2020, prior to becoming a member of Congress, supporting philanthropic efforts.

The post Rep. Landsman comments on President Trump’s proposal for Gaza  appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Randolph Hubach, Purdue University and Cody Mullen, Purdue University

Rural America faces many challenges that Congress and the federal government could help alleviate under the new Trump administration.

Rural hospitals and their obstetrics wards have been closing at a rapid pace, leaving rural residents traveling farther for health care. Affordable housing is increasingly hard to find in rural communities, where pay is often lower and poverty higher than average. Land ownership is changing, leaving more communities with outsiders wielding influence over their local resources.

As experts in rural health and policy at the Center for Rural and Migrant Health at Purdue University, we work with people across the United States to build resilient rural communities.

Here are some ways we believe the Trump administration could work with Congress to boost these communities’ health and economies.

1. Rural health care access

One of the greatest challenges to rural health care is its vulnerability to shifts in policy and funding cuts because of rural areas’ high rates of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

About 25% of rural residents rely on Medicaid, a federal program that provides health insurance for low-income residents. A disproportionate share of Medicare beneficiaries – people over 65 who receive federal health coverage – also live in rural areas. At the same time, the average health of rural residents lags the nation as a whole.

Rural clinics and hospitals

Funding from those federal programs affects rural hospitals, and rural hospitals are struggling.

Nearly half of rural hospitals operate in the red today, and over 170 rural hospitals have closed since 2010. The low population density of rural areas can make it difficult for hospitals to cover operating costs when their patient volume is low. These hospital closures have left rural residents traveling an extra 20 miles (32 km) on average to receive inpatient health care services and an extra 40 miles (64 km) for specialty care services.

The government has created programs to try to help keep hospitals operating, but they all require funding that is at risk. For example:

• The Low-volume Hospital Adjustment Act, first implemented in 2005, has helped numerous rural hospitals by boosting their Medicare payments per patient, but it faces regular threats of funding cuts. It and several other programs to support Medicare-dependent hospitals are set to expire on March 31, 2025, when the next federal budget is due.
• The rural emergency hospital model, created in 2020, helps qualifying rural facilities to maintain access to essential emergency and outpatient hospital services, also by providing higher Medicare payments. Thus far, only 30 rural hospitals have transitioned to this model, in part because they would have to eliminate inpatient care services, which also limits outpatient surgery and other medical services that could require overnight care in the event of an emergency.

Services for pregnant women have also gotten harder to find in rural areas.

Between 2011 and 2021, 267 rural hospitals discontinued obstetric services, representing 25% of the United States’ rural obstetrics units. In response, the federal government has implemented various initiatives to enhance access to care, such as the Rural Hospital Stabilization Pilot Program and the Rural Maternal and Obstetric Management Strategies Program. However, these programs also require funding.

Expanding telehealth

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth – the ability to meet with your doctor over video – wasn’t widely used. It could be difficult for doctors to ensure reimbursement, and the logistics of meeting federal requirements and privacy rules could be challenging.

The pandemic changed that. Improving technology allowed telehealth to quickly expand, reducing people’s contact with sick patients, and the government issued waivers for Medicare and Medicaid to pay for telehealth treatment. That opened up new opportunities for rural patients to get health care and opportunities for providers to reach more patients.

However, the Medicare and Medicaid waivers for most telehealth services were only temporary. Only payments for mental and behavioral health teleheath services continued, and those are set to expire with the federal budget in March 2025, unless they are renewed.

One way to expand rural health care would be to make those waivers permanent.

Increasing access to telehealth could also support people struggling with opioid addiction and other substance use disorders, which have been on the rise in rural areas.

2. Affordable housing is a rural problem too

Like their urban peers, rural communities face a shortage of affordable housing.

Unemployment in rural areas today exceeds levels before the COVID-19 pandemic. Job growth and median incomes lag behind urban areas, and rural poverty rates are higher.

Rural housing prices have been exacerbated by continued population growth over the past four years, lower incomes compared with their urban peers, limited employment opportunities and few high-quality homes available for rent or sale. Rural communities often have aging homes built upon outdated or inadequate infrastructure, such as deteriorating sewer and water lines.

One proposal to help people looking for affordable rural housing is the bipartisan Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, which calls for creating a new federal tax credit to spur the development and renovation of family housing in distressed urban, suburban and rural neighborhoods.

Similarly, the Section 502 Direct Loan Program through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which subsidizes mortgages for low-income applicants to obtain safe housing, could be expanded with additional funding to enable more people to receive subsidized mortgages.

3. Locally owned land benefits communities

Seniors age 65 and older own 40% of the agricultural land in the U.S., according to the American Farmland Trust. That means that more than 360 million acres of farmland could be transferred to new owners in the next few decades. If their heirs aren’t interested in farming, that land could be sold to large operations or real estate developers.

That affects rural communities because locally owned rural businesses tend to invest in their communities, and they are more likely to make decisions that benefit the community’s well-being.

Congress can take some steps to help communities keep more farmland locally owned.

The proposed Farm Transitions Act, for example, would establish a commission on farm transitions to study issues that affect locally owned farms and provide recommendations to help transition agricultural operations to the next generation of farmers and ranchers.

About 30% of farmers have been in business for less than 10 years, and many of them rent the land they farm. Programs such as USDA’s farm loan programs and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program help support local land purchases and could be improved to identify and eliminate barriers that communities face.

We believe that by addressing these issues, Congress and the new administration can help some of the country’s most vulnerable citizens. Efforts to build resilient and strong rural communities will benefit everyone.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Randolph Hubach, Purdue University and Cody Mullen, Purdue University

Read more:

• America’s dairy farms are disappearing, down 95% since the 1970s − milk price rules are one reason why
• Rural America’s economies are often left out by a design flaw in federal funding
• After wildfires, ranchers face 2-year delay to graze cattle on federal land – is it doing more harm than good?

Randolph Hubach receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Health Resources and Services Administration.

Cody Mullen receives funding from the Health Resources and Services Administration. He is affiliated with the National Rural Health Association. 

Feature Image: Rural America can be idyllic, but many communities still need support. Mint Images via Getty Images

The post Trump administration can boost rural healthcare and housing appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By April Ryan

NNPA NEWSWIRE — Before the completed investigation officially began, President Trump laid the blame for the accident on the Army helicopter. He felt it should have been flying at a different altitude, higher or lower, than the jet.    

“We are dealing with a vicious adversary,” according to Rev. Al Sharpton, the head of the National Action Network speaking of President Donald Trump and his hate diatribe Thursday morning. President Trump blamed DEI, the Obama and Biden administrations along with former Transportation Sec.   Pete Buttigieg for the deadly midair crash over the Potomac last night. 67 people died after an accident between an American Airline Plane and an Army Helicopter. When asked why President Trump thought diversity had something to do with the crash, he said,” I have common sense and most people don’t.” Reverend Al, who is investigating the impact of the Trump anti-DEI efforts in retail believes Trump is “obsessed with race” and he is a “raw, insensitive, uncaring man.”

Former Secretary Buttigieg immediately went to social media making a statement saying, Trump should be leading, not lying.” Buttigieg also fact-checked Trump saying we grew Air Traffic Control and had zero commercial airline crash fatalities out of millions of flights on our watch.”

During Trump’s rant on DEI at the White House briefing room podium, he asserted, “the FAA’s diversity push includes a focus on hiring people with severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities. That is amazing. And then it says, the FAA says, people with severe disabilities, the most underrepresented segment of the workforce, and they want them in, and they want them. They can be air traffic controllers. I don’t think so.” Trump went on to say the prior administrations felt those departments were “too White.”

According to reports FAA staffing has been an issue since Inauguration Day January 20, 2025.  Also, Elon Musk, the head of the White House Office of Government Efficiency is reported to have asked the head of the FAA to resign. 

Former Black Obama Administration Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx exclusively told this reporter after the Trump statements,” I would caution against any definitive conclusions until that work [investigation] is done by trained, experienced professionals.”

Foxx, who also worked as a transportation consultant in the Biden administration admonished the Trump address saying, “There is no sugar-coating the tragic midair collision that occurred last night. In my experience, safety has always been the number one focus of the Federal Aviation Administration.” Foxx says there is a safety mission to be completed after this tragedy. “There is a well-practiced root cause process that has been taken in the past. It should be used now with competent professionals. A comprehensive, fact-based investigation will answer the many questions we all have. It would also help guard against future accidents of this type,” according to the transportation expert.

Before the completed investigation officially began, President Trump laid the blame for the accident on the Army helicopter. He felt it should have been flying at a different altitude, higher or lower, than the jet. When it comes to the president’s corrosive comments, reaction has been swift from the Civil Rights community. In a statement from the President and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Derrick Johnson, “The NAACP is disgusted by this display of unpresidential, divisive behavior.” Johnson told this reporter in a text message, “The President has made his decision to put politics over people abundantly clear as he uses the highest office in the land to sow hatred rooted in falsehoods instead of providing us with the leadership we need and deserve.”

As Trump worked to distract with his words on DEI, the questions still abound as to what caused the deadly plane crash. Former Sec. Foxx, immediately following the fatal crash said. “My worst fear is that something happened with the avionics. I hope and expect that this is not the case. But most aircraft these days run in a form of GPS. Could a warning system have failed? But then, how can two systems fail? That leads to some even more grave concerns about interference with the systems. There are many other potential causes.”

The post Trump blames DEI for plane crash, Black community reacts appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .