By: Yuting Lin

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump said that if he were to win the 2024 election, he would add new tariffs on goods from other countries, especially from China. Now, some Chinese products already have tariffs as high as 125%. Trump’s goal is to make foreign products more expensive, so Americans will buy more “made in USA” products instead of the products from other countries, and thus support American workers. Trump believes this will help American factories earn more money and hire more American workers. He also wants the U.S. to depend less on other countries.

But this kind of policy also brings risks. First, when tariffs go up, prices usually go up too. That means people in the U.S. may have to pay more for everyday items like clothes, electronics, and even food. Life could become more expensive, especially for families with lower incomes. Many people are already struggling to live with the current prices. If prices rise even further while their wages stay the same, they may find it impossible to survive. Some might even end up homeless, living on the streets. This could also lead to a larger problem: a potential economic collapse.

Also, China has responded by raising tariffs on American goods to 125% as well. This kind of situation is called a “trade war.” In a trade war, both countries keep raising taxes on each other’s products, which will end up hurting businesses in both countries. Companies may lose money, sell less, and even have to lay off workers. This could lead to a decline in social morals, triggering a “butterfly effect” of other negative consequences. In 2018 and 2019, when Trump added tariffs on Chinese goods, some American farmers and companies suffered because China stopped buying from them. Some jobs were lost instead of saved. Tariffs can have bad results for workers and companies quite frequently.

If this continues, it can lead to inflation in the U.S. getting worse, meaning prices keep rising, the stock market might go down, people could lose money, and U.S.-China relations could become more tense, making cooperation harder in the future.

In the end, I think both countries should focus on helping the people in their countries live better lives, not on fighting each other with tariffs. Trade wars don’t really have winners; both sides lose something.  No matter who wins a war, it’s always the people who pay the highest price. Higher prices, fewer jobs, and more stress on people are not results anyone wants. Instead of using force, it’s better to use communication. If leaders care about their people, then they should find a smart and peaceful way to solve problems. I really hope countries can work together, instead of against each other, and build a better world for everyone.

By Paulina Bargnesi

While scrolling through TikTok, you come across a video of a thin, athletic woman explaining how the ‘carnivore diet’ has forever changed her life as she shoves a stick of butter down her throat. The average person will watch in awe and wonder how her heart is still beating. However, this video will inspire a fraction of the viewers. These days it seems everyone is trying to lose weight, so taking advice from a woman who looks like she has it all together is a no brainer. For inspiration on what to do during their new health journey, they’ll continue to watch this woman go on and on about meat. She’ll tell them all the right things, like how the food industry prioritizes money over the safety of consumers and how whole foods are the key to healthy living. While most of her videos are devoid of political undertones, there are key giveaways to the true nature of her content. Tucked away in the caption of her videos is the hashtag MAHA. 

‘MAHA’ is a banal play on Trump’s ‘MAGA’ slogan, standing  for Make America Healthy Again. A search on Instagram or TikTok will send you down a rabbit whole of hundreds of videos about MAHA. Some videos will include people raving about raw milk benefits and the infamous carnivore diet, or denouncing the food dye red 40. These are all talking points of RFK Jr. – MAHA’s poster boy. In fact, the rise in popularity of MAHA can be attributed to Kennedy’s presidential campaign. Before RFK Jr. became the secretary of health and human services under Trump’s current administration, he was a candidate for the 2024 presidential election. He built his whole campaign on taking down big pharma (which really meant decreasing funding for and access to vaccines) and dismantling public health policies. And although he only received 0.4% of the popular vote, he managed to build a loyal ‘fan base’, consisting of “almond” moms, gym bros, and wellness influencers. 

MAHA and MAGA share many characteristics. For one, any person who knows a rudimentary level of U.S. history can deduce that America has never been truly great (slavery, treatment of Native Americans, segregation, etc.) nor healthy (lead in water, AIDS, etc.). Additionally, it is easy to mistake MAHA for MAGA because of their practically indistinguishable names, but also their close connections to Trump. Donald Trump has ruined many things in my opinion, but a crime he can not be forgiven for is his destruction of the red hat. Now anytime I see someone with a red hat, I have to do a double take to ensure that MAGA is not engraved on the front. Aside from my personal grievances with Trump, his red hat and MAGA are very iconic. 

Trump managed to promise the impossible. In 2016, he promised to build our very own Great Wall rivaling that of China’s. Now with his 2025 presidency starting, he has made little to no mention of building the wall. In 2024 during his campaign rallies, he promised to bring down food prices on day one, which one could argue won him this presidential election. Then, in an interview with Time after winning the election, he claimed it’s ‘very hard’ to bring down food prices, and now during his presidency  the cost of eggs is soaring. Yet even with these empty promises, Trump supporters are perhaps stronger than ever for their lord and savior Donald J. Trump. This is because Trump and his cohorts have effectively mastered indoctrination. Trump supporters are more like a community rather than a group of people who voted for the same man. They are willing to defend Trump for anything wrong he has done or will do. It is no wonder why RFK Jr. wanted to jump on the bandwagon with MAHA; he too wants a passionate group of supporters. 

Although his fan base seems to believe RFK is a man of strong principles and unwavering conviction, the public figure is more of a snake oil salesman than anything else. He will flock to whichever side of the political spectrum endorses him. Before making the decision to drop out of the 2024 presidential race, RFK approached the Harris campaign with a deal: I endorse you for a position in your cabinet. At the same time, RFK Jr. proposed a similar deal to the Trump team. And ever the salesman, the former president took the wellness guru up on his offer, as the convicted felon can never miss the chance to strike a deal. As such, RFK made promises to his supporters that he will work with Donald Trump to ensure improvement in America’s nutrition and fight against chronic disease, and thus MAHA was born. And that’s how RFK found himself on a private jet with DJT and several others, forced to pose with a Big Mac in one hand and a grimace on his face as some sort of initiation ritual into the MAGA crowd. 

On the surface level, MAHA does raise some important concerns regarding America’s leading causes of mortality and quality of life. They also routinely call into question the integrity of our pharmaceutical industry and healthcare system. However, instead of attacking Big Pharma’s lobbying practices or price gouging, MAHA believes the corruption lies within their development of vaccines and the general practice of research. They prey on the already present distrust Amerians have for our healthcare system and indoctrinate people into believing they have a way to break out of it. They start with a truth and spin it into a web of lies. MAHA has now made some Americans think that autism and down syndrome are the effects of vaccines, when decades of research has proved otherwise. 

The effects of RFK and his MAHA movement are far reaching. In 2019, RFK traveled to Samoa, a country already experiencing vaccine distrust. While there, he hung out with another anti-vaccine influencer to help spread even more fear regarding the measles vaccine. By the time he left, mistrust of vaccines grew and a measles outbreak, causing thousands of illnesses and 83 deaths, was left in his wake. Now as the leader of the HHS, RFK Jr. has an even greater ability to stoke vaccine misinformation and fumble public health crises. We can see one consequence of this burgeoning issue with the measles outbreak in Houston, Texas, where 159 cases have already been identified. This number almost rivals the total number of measles infections for the whole year of 2024. Instead of urging folks in Texas to vaccinate their children, RFK further pushed the narrative that nutritional supplements like Vitamin A and D were aiding in the treatment of the measles outbreak. Once again, RFK shows his limited knowledge in science, as viruses can not be cured with vitamins or even antibacterial medications. A simple solution would be to encourage vaccines as a prevention to infection, but that would just be too easy. 

The famous Kennedy also revealed how little he knows about human biology with the belief that Black people should follow a different vaccine schedule compared to whites because their immune systems are stronger. Instead of addressing the real effect racism has on health outcomes for Black people like high maternal mortality and cancer rates, RFK continues to peddle the same misinformation that causes these phenomena to exist. 

Additionally, RFK offers no real solution to the health crises we face in modern day America. Instead of addressing the fact that most Americans are too busy at office jobs to focus on healthy lifestyles, live in food deserts where affordable fresh fruits and vegetables are hard to come by, outdoor spaces where exercise is encouraged are often too far out of reach and individuals are becoming more isolated from society, RFK and the MAHA movement take the opportunity to grift even more. They tout their overpriced natural sweeteners like Agave and refined coconut sugar as alternatives to high fructose corn syrup, conveniently failing to mention the kickbacks they get after sponsoring them. Despite MAHA’s lies, these “healthy” alternatives often have the same effect on blood sugar levels and are certainly not any sort of cure to diabetes. 

Lastly, RFK’s solution to our mental health issues in the United States, is the construction of wellness farms, which sound frighteningly similar to the camps Germany built in the 1940s to contain disabled people. RFK believes Americans with ADHD and depression should be forced to work outdoors in these farms, and that through this, they will find the cure to their mental ailments and be free of their drug prescriptions. Yet there is, once again, very little evidence that says manual labor helps alleviate mental disorders or substance abuse. 

It’s hard to believe that MAHA has any true allegiance to the wellbeing of the American people. They often spout disinformation about health and advocate for defunding scientific research. With RFK Jr. at the helm of our biggest health agency in the country, who knows what the future will hold.

By Hannah You 

Imagine walking into a public school classroom and finding not just textbooks and lesson plans but a government-mandated Bible on every desk. What if, instead, it were a Torah? A Quran? The Bhagavad Gita? This is the reality that Oklahoma’s superintendent envisions for its K-12 students—a policy to shift schools away from centers of knowledge and into spaces of religious indoctrination. 

Ryan Walters, Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction, has initiated a mandate to distribute Bibles for teachers to develop public school classroom lesson plans for grades 5 through 12. Approving up to $6 million in taxpayer funds for the leather, Trump-endorsed Bibles, Walters claims that understanding biblical principles is essential for understanding American history and should be in AP Government classrooms as a fundamental document next to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. However, his initiative has faced criticism and lawsuits from educators, parents, and religious leaders, who assert that the mandate violates the First Amendment and alienates students of different faiths. 

All in all, Superintendent Walters’ mandate to include Bibles in public schools is an unconstitutional and moral overstep that exploits taxpayer funds in one of the nation’s worst education systems, all while relying on Walters’s baseless, unprovable claims filled with loaded language and personal attacks.

The First Amendment draws a line between church and state, one that has protected these institutions for over two centuries; Walters’ mandate doesn’t just blur that line; it erases it completely. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ensures that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (US Const. amend. I). In other words, the Constitution mandates that laws cannot be passed that force a religion or religious doctrine upon the public. By making the use of these bibles mandatory in public classroom lessons, Walters creates a state-sponsored requirement for one specific religion to be incorporated into lessons without consideration of any other religious belief. 

Unsurprisingly, this unconstitutional mandate has sparked legal action. In October 2024, 32 Oklahoma parents, teachers, and faith leaders filed a lawsuit against Walters, arguing that the policy infringes on constitutional protections and families’ rights. Erica Wright, president of the Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition and public school parent who signed the suit, explains that “The lawsuit is really about putting a stop to this unconstitutional mandate that violates the Oklahoma Constitution…as a mother and a devout Christian, that it is solely the responsibility of myself and my husband to make all decisions regarding when and how our children engage with the Bible and its religious teachings” (Humphrey). Wright’s point is that Walters’ Bible mandate encroaches on the Constitution, because under the First Amendment, religious instruction should be a personal family decision, not a state-imposed requirement. Ultimately, what is at stake here is the integrity of constitutional rights, the neutrality of public education, and the right to make personal decisions about religious instruction without government interference.

In response to this lawsuit, Walters counters protesters’ arguments with the claims that “Oklahomans will not be bullied by out-of-state, radical leftists who hate the principles our nation was founded upon…I will never back down to the woke mob, no matter what tactic they use to try to intimidate Oklahomans” (Humphrey). Here, Walters suggests that those who oppose his position are “bullies” and outsiders who have come to antagonize the people of Oklahoma with their “radical” and “woke” views. What Walters fails to recognize is that his reliance on loaded language, hyperbole, and personal affront attacks on those who disagree with him is that he himself lacks a fact-based coherent argument to support his claim that the inclusion of Bibles in public school classrooms does not violate the Establishment clause of the Constitution. Indeed, his contention that those who oppose him “hate the principle our nation founded upon” contradicts the very First Amendment argument of those with whom he disagrees. In plain terms, how can his opponents both “hate the Constitution” and argue that something is against the Constitution?  How can they hate the very thing they want to follow?

 In fact, Walters’ arguments are speculative at best and collapse under the weight of reality, as he continues to defend, “It is not possible for our students to understand American history and culture without understanding the Biblical principles from which they came,” claiming that the removal of the Bible from schools since the 1960s has contributed to educational decline (Humphrey). Firstly, this claim is inherently unprovable—there is no way to confirm that understanding American history is impossible without Biblical teachings. Equally important, to claim that since the removal of the Bible from schools in the 1960s, no scholars have been able to properly interpret American history is irrational and false. Countless constitutional scholars and national leaders have emerged since 1960 who demonstrate a profound understanding of American history and law. Supreme Court justices like Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson—both born post-removal—have shaped the nation’s legal and cultural fabric. Walters’ assertion not only disregards this evidence but also uses unprovable claims with more loaded language and baseless rhetoric. 

Moreover, the $6 million price tag for Walters’ initiative is more than a fiscal choice; it’s a moral one. In a state ranked 49th in K-12 education, with underfunded public schools, overburdened teachers, and 20% of high school students not graduating on time, taxpayers are being exploited to fund a political and religious agenda instead of addressing the pressing needs of Oklahoma’s weak education system (“Oklahoma Rankings”). Furthermore, the chosen edition—the leather-backed, 60 dollars apiece, Trump-endorsed God Bless the U.S.A. Bible—raises concern over what truly is being valued: religion, education, or politics? As Edd Doerr, president of the American Humanist Association, points out, “Public schools serve a uniquely public function: the training of American citizens in an atmosphere free of parochial, divisive, or separatist influence of any sort” (Doerr). In making this comment, Doerr urges us to reflect on the fundamental purpose of public schools: to educate all students in an environment that remains impartial and free from polarizing partisan influences. This matters because Walters’ initiative directly contradicts this principle by imposing a religious and political agenda on public schools, creating a divisive ideology that undermines their role as neutral spaces for education and fosters exclusion rather than unity.

In conclusion, Superintendent Walters’ mandate to introduce Bibles into public schools is both unconstitutional and morally misguided, misusing taxpayer funds for a non-educational agenda while resting on weak arguments and inflammatory language to defend its validity. His mandate to include Bibles in public schools violates the constitutional separation of church and state, exploits taxpayer funds in an already struggling education system, and imposes a narrow religious perspective in an open space. 

Instead of pursuing divisive and legally questionable initiatives, efforts should prioritize increasing funding for public education, supporting teachers, and holding leaders accountable to ensure educational priorities remain focused on fairness, equity, and excellence. While these may appear to be lofty federal goals, meaningful change begins locally and can start with you—by voicing concerns to local representatives, establishing programs or clubs that respect and benefit all students regardless of their beliefs, and engaging in discussions that highlight the importance of neutrality in public institutions. Ensuring a fair, inclusive, and constitutional education system is a fight worth fighting for—a necessary pursuit for the well-being of all students.

By Hank Bartholomew

On the morning of January 6, 2021, an as-of-yet unidentified group of people began the construction of a small wooden structure on Capitol grounds. A wooden platform, two main pillars, and a crossbar were assembled. A few hours later, this platform rode the surge of rioters storming the home of American democracy. Added to this structure was a small wooden rope. A gallows had been completed. Its intended occupant was the vice president of the free world.

January 6th has come, at least for many, to symbolize the Trump presidency. Over the last four years, it has become a rallying point for critics. But now, with Donald Trump back in office, a war to preserve the history of the Capitol Insurrection may be on the horizon.

At around twelve P.M on the day of the insurrection, President Donald Trump delivered a speech to supporters near the White House. At this time, it had become clear that Trump had lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden. But for the last few months, the president had been claiming that the election was “rigged” and a “sham,” disputing the results. “We will never give up,” proclaimed the most powerful man in America. “We will never concede.”

At around 1:00 PM, Trump ended his remarks, concluding, “We’re going to the Capitol. We’re going to try and give them [Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”

His supporters took these remarks to heart. Ordinary citizens and extremist group members alike stormed the symbol of American democracy, assaulting police officers and chanting death threats. Their intention was to overturn the legitimate democratic process. 

Four years later, the memory of January 6th has faded. New issues and news now occupy us. But with the incoming administration, there have been efforts to change the narrative surrounding January 6th, to repaint the assault as a patriotic demonstration. 

On his first day back in office, one of Donal Trump’s first actions was to pardon over 1,500 of the January 6th rioters. While certainly legal, this action is incredibly disturbing. A pardon is intended to commute the sentence of an individual wrongly imprisoned. Those pardoned are supposed to be victims of unfair persecution or targeting, people who deserve not to be punished. But those who stormed the capital on January 6th did commit a crime. Regardless of which side one falls on the political spectrum, that is an undeniable fact. Insurrectionists smashed windows and broke down doors. They vandalized the offices of congressional leaders and stole possessions. A capitol police officer, lying imobile on the ground, was beaten with a flag pole. Insurrectionists attacked police officers, slamming them into doors and engaging in fistfights. Capitol police officer Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, during testimony to Congress, vividly described how, “”My fellow officers and I were punched, kicked, shoved, sprayed with chemical irritants by a violent mob.” These are crimes. Regardless of whether their motivations were just or not, these are federal felonies. That much can not be disputed.

The point is that these individuals did commit a crime. By pardoning them, Trump has, for all purposes, proclaimed their innocence. And that is a grave mistake. Labeling beating law enforcement officers as legitimate and legal sets a precedent that such actions are acceptable. By pardoning January 6th rioters, Donald Trump has declared that violently assaulting American democracy is okay. It takes little imagination to see what could happen next.

Furthermore, the new president’s language is incredibly concerning. Throughout various interviews, America’s forty-seventh president has described the January 6th rioters as “political prisoners” and “patriots.” Such language is deeply disturbing. While it is possible these people were patriots–meaning they truly believed their actions were in the best interest of America–labeling these individuals as “political prisoners” is dangerous. Whether the justice system is flawed or not is entirely a different debate, but these people unequivocally committed a crime. Fox News and MSNBC alike broadcasted the same images to a shocked American public on that fateful day. We all saw the same thing. Our duty now is to provide, to our future generations, an accurate representation of what happened.

For evidence of these claims, look no further than the two most high-profile individuals pardoned by Donald Trump: Henry Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes. Tarrio was found with a six-page plan and manifesto declaring how the Proud Boys, a militia group that has white supremacy ties, would storm a variety of government institutions if Trump was not reinstated as president in 2020. Rhodes, the leader of the Oathkeepers, a para-military movement that has ties to ant-semetic movements, led a group of his followers to Washington, where they stashed a cache of weapons in a D.C. hotel.

I mention these examples not to criticize the former president or his supporters. I simply mention them to remind ourselves that these are criminals. These are acts of seditious conspiracy. As defined by the statute 18 U.S.C. § 2384, seditious conspiracy occurs “if two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.” This statute has existed since 1948. It is not arbitrary. It is not a weapon of the Biden administration. It is a law meant to protect our nation. And Henry Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes, as well as innumerable other January 6th rioters, broke the law. They did try to “delay the execution of” a United States law–namely, the confirmation of Joe Biden as president. This is a crime. Labeling these individuals as anything other than criminals is inaccurate.

The purpose of this article is not to analyze the actions on January 6th. The American legal system has done its part with regard to the issue. Our bureaucracy has, for right or wrong, decided who is innocent or guilty. That is what it is. Maybe some feel Donald Trump’s actions were seditious. Maybe some believe the January 6th rioters should never have been prosecuted. But our government’s job is to make those determinations for us. And they have. We must accept what they say, or we have no government at all.

But what we can not accept is the removal of January 6th from our history. 

In a democracy, it is our job to provide the public with facts, and then allow the public to make their own conclusions based on those facts. If we do not give ourselves the true facts to make those decisions, then our democracy truly is a sham.