Deny, defend, depose. These were the words written on the bullets used to take UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s life just a few days ago. In the days afterwards, the internet has been torn over the death with a wide spectrum of views that make anyone question: Where did this all start?

Insurance companies aren’t exactly known to be the most honest. Typically, they are known for complex agreements with policies that are difficult to understand, but moreover for denying claims despite the necessity for it to be accepted. That’s why healthcare insurance companies have been facing the brunt of American anger for the last few decades -  because of denials on claims that have led to losses of life.

Healthcare is ridiculously expensive in the United States. Indeed, the average American spends an estimated $12,742, which is a number nearly two times that of other OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries. This expense isn’t new - it’s existed for years now. There’s many reasons why healthcare may be so expensive: from inefficient policies to rising drug costs. And it certainly does not help that there is a healthcare worker shortage in the US.

That’s why Americans turn to health insurance. Unexpected costs that could be in five or six digits lead most Americans to choose to pay a monthly fee to have their bills covered in the event of an incident. However, health insurance companies resonate with the general insurance industry - and try and weed their way out of paying claims. Industry reports show anywhere from 17 to 30% of claims being denied, with UnitedHealthcare leading the pack in the highest denial rates.

Though there may not be a singular person responsible for the way health insurance companies are today, it ended up such that anger reached a boiling point - with the death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in a shooting. Now, other healthcare CEOs are fearing for their lives. Requests for corporate security have shot up, and pages on Wikipedia mentioning such CEOs have been requested for deletion. Across the US, responses have been varied, from internet sleuths helping look for the killer, to SNL making fun of the shooting, to doctors conflicted over what just happened. 

Instead, reform must be pushed for. America needs to address its two biggest issues: healthcare and health insurance. Unfortunately, current debates over this issue have become politicized, such as the removal of ObamaCare. Lives shouldn’t cost money, and it’s time America finally sees change. 

Read more here:

• Richard Hall, The Independent

• Megan Cerullo, CBS News

• Joshua Chaffin and Ginger Adams Otis, Washington Post

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump will begin his second presidency, ushering in new policies within seconds of the words “so help me god”. Among these is a plan that threatens the very fabric of America’s “melting pot” identity: a renewed push for mass deportations. 

While framed as a measure to secure borders and uphold the law, Trump’s approach has raised alarms across the nation and beyond for its devastating implications—not just for undocumented individuals but for their U.S.-citizen children, the silent victims of these policies. Every year, hundreds of thousands of children born on American soil find themselves at risk of being torn from their families due to the undocumented status of their parents. These children, as U.S. citizens, are entitled to the protections and opportunities of American life. Yet, the deportation of their parents leaves them struggling with immense psychological, economic, and social burdens, putting lawmakers in a difficult position of how to balance border security with child welfare.  

Among the most contentious of Trump’s plans is a “Day One Executive Order” ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and foreign nationals engaging in “birth tourism”​. Legal scholars and civil rights organizations argue this move violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” This policy could render millions of children stateless or reliant on the tenuous legal statuses of their parents, creating generational inequalities. Trump’s campaign website frames this initiative as a deterrent to illegal immigration and exploitation of U.S. resources. Furthermore, Trump has indicated his intention to have the Fourteenth Amendment "interpreted the right way," suggesting he plans to leverage legal avenues and Republican-nominated judges to achieve this goal​. This approach raises concerns about the use of lawfare to erode established constitutional protections and the potential for judicial activism to advance partisan immigration policies.

 However, the policy's implementation would face numerous legal challenges and carry significant human costs. More than 4.4 million U.S.-citizen children live with at least one undocumented parent, a demographic that would likely be disproportionately affected by these changes.

Beyond the devastating impact on individual families, Trump's policies would impose broader social and economic costs. Estimates show that deporting all undocumented immigrants in the U.S. would reduce GDP by $4.7 trillion over 10 years due to lost labor and productivity. Mixed-status families, who disproportionately work in industries such as agriculture, construction, and healthcare, contribute significantly to the economy and social fabric of their communities.

If enacted, Trump’s immigration policies could leave millions of children without legal protections, stability, or hope for the future. As Americans, we must ask ourselves whether the pursuit of “law and order” is worth the price of broken families and lost futures. Upholding this ethos means rejecting policies that weaponize citizenship and immigration against the most vulnerable among us: our children. At the same time, the importance of border security cannot be ignored—it is essential for protecting national sovereignty and public safety. However, immigration policies must balance enforcement with compassion and provide pathways for hardworking undocumented immigrants to remain in the country legally.

To achieve this, the U.S. can adopt a multi-faceted approach. First, expanding pathways to legal status, such as updated guest worker programs or permanent residency options for undocumented immigrants who meet criteria like years of residence, economic contributions, and community ties, can incentivize lawful participation in society. Second, bipartisan reforms, including reestablishing a version of the DREAM Act and strengthening programs like DACA and TPS, can protect children and families from living in fear of deportation.

Lastly, creating programs that allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal residency after fulfilling requirements like paying fines, passing background checks, and demonstrating employment or educational contributions would address concerns about fairness while recognizing their value to the economy. By balancing border security with humane and practical solutions, the U.S. can protect its sovereignty while upholding its ideals as a nation built on opportunity and inclusion.

Read more here:

• Robert Farley, FactCheck.org

• Tim Hume, Vice

• Trump Agenda 47: Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegals and Outlawing Birth Tourism

Over the course of the 2024 presidential election, President Joe Biden repeatedly promised American voters he would not use his power as the nation’s leader to pardon his son Hunter Biden for numerous convicted crimes. After President Biden’s Democratic Party lost the election to President-elect Donald Trump in November 2024, Biden wandered away from his promise, announcing on the first day of December he pardoned Hunter.

This turnaround did not surprise some political scientists, who expected Biden to pardon associates such as Hunter Biden in the case of a Trump victory as protection against Trump’s potential retaliations against Biden after entering office. Although not surprising to those experts, President Biden’s pardon may erode public trust in the Democratic Party and the federal government overall. This is because Hunter’s crimes, which he is now free of the consequences of, are no small misdemeanours.

In October 2018, Hunter Biden purchased a firearm —a .38 caliber Colt Cobra Special— that his attorneys later claimed was never fired. The President’s son asserted he eventually trashed the firearm, but this response did not satisfy prosecutors, who filed a case against Hunter for dishonestly affirming on his firearm purchase form he did not use drugs. Hunter possesses a track record for drug addiction, abusing substances such as cocaine multiple times prior to acquiring the .38 caliber Colt Cobra Special that dragged him to court in the Bidens’ home state of Delaware.

Originally, authorities did not plan to prosecute Hunter Biden because of a plea deal the two parties reached in June 2023. If the deal succeeded, Hunter would escape criminal penalties for firearm felonies upon the condition he maintained good behaviour for the following two years. Unfortunately for Hunter, U.S. District Court Judge for Delaware Maryellen Noreika raised concerns over his plea deal during a plea hearing one month later, leading prosecutors to cancel the deal. This threw Hunter’s case into potential prosecution, and the federal government indicted him in September 2023.

After a tense trial process in 2024, the U.S. District Court for Delaware found Hunter Biden guilty of three federal firearm charges. With this verdict, Hunter became the first child of a President in office convicted of criminal charges.

At this point, the firearm charges were not Hunter Biden’s only legal problems. President Biden’s second son was also indicted and charged for tax evasion, adding three felony and six misdemeanours to his list of worries. California authorities concluded Hunter dodged at least US$1.4 million worth of federal taxes from 2016 to 2019. The September 2024 outcome of an attempted Alford plea deal, under which Hunter would not admit guilt of but accept criminal punishment for the tax crimes, mirrored that of the June 2023 plea deal for illegal firearm purchases. The prosecution did not accept Hunter’s Alford plea, pressuring Hunter to unconditionally plead guilty during his plea hearing. U.S. District Court Judge for Central California Mark Scarsi accepted Hunter’s plea and scheduled his sentencing in December 2024.

If President Biden did not pardon his son, Hunter Biden could have faced up to 17 years of incarceration, although some legal experts expected his prison sentence to be less than five years. Before anyone could find out for certain, President Biden granted his presidential pardon, closing the door on years of Hunter’s judicial struggles. To justify freeing Hunter from the consequences of all crimes he committed from January 2014 to December 2024, Biden published an official statement claiming Hunter was selectively and unfairly tried. With the evidence on the table and the guilty verdicts formalised, the rest of America might not think the same.

Read more here:

• Mark Leibovich, The Atlantic

• MJ Lee, Paula Reid, and Michael Williams, CNN

• Adam Reiss, Dareh Gregorian, and Laura Jarrett, NBC

• Kristy Greenberg, The Atlantic

• Nathaniel Rakich, Mary Radcliffe, and Tia Yang, ABC

• Anthony Zurcher, BBC

The Middle East is often characterized with violence, political instability, and a flurry of chaos. If you insert American dramatization, then imagine a camel, a palm tree, and maybe even a pyramid in the middle of Arab. It’s not shocking that the words said above are true. More recently, citizens of the Syrian rebel force finally overthrew the unpopular and tyranist Basshar Al-Assad’s regime which had been in place for over 50 years. It was a symbol of political freedom, democratic ideals, and a chance of hope for a country previously affected by one of the worst crises in history. More prominently, the reaction made by President Biden both sends signals of help but also future U.S. involvement.

The first remarks were: “ [lets] help them seize an opportunity to manage the risk." towards shareholders and partners. All because the most worrying issue in Syria isn’t the volatility of the government, rather the stakeholders that the U.S. invests in.

President Biden noted the administration is "clear eyed" about the possibility that ISIS may try to gain control amid a power vacuum, but he said that "we will not let that happen." He explained that the U.S. conducted precision airstrikes within Syria targeting ISIS camps and operatives. 

What can we actually expect what Biden will commit to with the Syrian future?

It’s not strange to actually think nothing will happen, there’s a fair chance nothing will. Biden is in the last two months of presidency, it’s likely we see little to no political action dedicated to the foreign relations of the future Syrian government. In honesty, the future is very unclear for the Syrian people.  Researchers explain that purely citizen-ran overthrows make governments more “complex” and likely to fall under large-scale tension, something that Syria is experiencing with its newfound popularity under international eye.  Another major U.S. goal will be promoting political stability in Syria, though this remains fraught with challenges. The U.S. has long supported efforts to transition Syria from authoritarian rule to a more democratic governance system, but with Assad's departure, questions about who will fill the leadership vacuum are urgent.

One possibility is that the U.S. will support a broad-based transitional government that includes members of the Syrian opposition, moderate Kurdish groups, and perhaps even defectors from the Assad regime. However, any power-sharing arrangement will need to navigate the deeply entrenched sectarian divisions and rivalries that have plagued the country throughout the conflict. Washington’s involvement could also extend to mediating talks between these factions, though it remains uncertain how much influence the U.S. can exert in the face of competing international powers, particularly Russia and Iran, who have long supported Assad.

The fall of Assad presents an opportunity for the U.S. to counterbalance the influence of Russia and Iran in Syria, both of whom have invested heavily in keeping the regime intact. Russia's military presence in Syria is expected to remain significant, and Iran’s support for militias loyal to the regime, particularly Hezbollah, has created an entrenched network of power that could prove difficult to uproot.

In a post-Assad scenario, the U.S. could look to expand its support for opposition forces that have been critical of both Assad and Iranian influence, especially in Syria’s north and east. The U.S. is already supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish-led militia that has been crucial in the fight against ISIS, but relations between Kurdish groups and Arab factions are often tense, and any U.S. involvement will need to navigate this delicate balance.

Although ISIS has been largely defeated, its ideology and remnants remain a significant security threat in Syria, particularly in the country’s sparsely populated eastern regions. The U.S. will likely continue its counterterrorism efforts in collaboration with local forces, including the SDF. With the Assad regime no longer in power, the U.S. may seek to strengthen its foothold in these regions to prevent any resurgence of the group, which remains capable of launching asymmetric attacks and building sleeper cells.

Read more here:

• Toksabay and Spicer, Reuters 

• Press Brief, CSIS

• Detsch,Mcleary, and Gould, Politico