Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Year: 2026

Federal judge blocks Trump executive order to cease funding for NPR and PBS, cites First Amendment

Federal judge blocks Trump executive order to cease funding for NPR and PBS, cites First Amendment

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration‘s efforts to defund PBS and NPR.  The ruling by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C., pertains to President Donald Trump’s executive order to cease federal funding for both entities, an action the judge ruled was unlawful and unenforceable. “It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” wrote Moss, an Obama appointee. NPR CEO KATHERINE MAHER VENTS ‘DEEP FRUSTRATION’ OVER GOP CUTS, SAYS IT WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE “The Federal Defendants fail to cite a single case in which a court has ever upheld a statute or executive action that bars a particular person or entity from participating in any federally funded activity based on that person or entity’s past speech,” the judge wrote. Republicans have long campaigned on ending federal funding for public media, citing left-wing political bias and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.  “The message is clear: NPR and PBS need not apply for any federal benefit because the President disapproves of their ‘left-wing’ coverage of the news,” Moss wrote. The White House called Tuesday’s ruling “ridiculous.” “This is a ridiculous ruling by an activist judge attempting to undermine the law,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital. “NPR and PBS have no right to receive taxpayer funds, and Congress already voted to defund them. The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.” NPR claimed that Trump wanted to cut off access to public funds as punishment for its reporting. In a statement to Fox News Digital, Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO, called Tuesday’s ruling a win for a free and independent press. FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS VOICE OF AMERICA MASS TERMINATIONS IN SCATHING RULING AGAINST LAKE “The court made clear that the government cannot use funding as a lever to influence or penalize the press, whether as a national news service or a local newsroom,” Maher said. “Public media exists to serve the public interest—that of Americans—not that of any political agenda or elected official.” Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House and PBS for comment.  While the government argued some legal claims were moot because of the organizational shifts following the initial defunding attempts, Judge Moss disagreed. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP “But that does not end the matter because the Executive Order sweeps beyond the CPB,” Moss added. “It also directs that all federal agencies refrain from funding NPR and PBS—regardless of the nature of the program or the merits of their applications or requests for funding.” The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Kagan turns on liberal ally Jackson with footnote jab over free speech

Kagan turns on liberal ally Jackson with footnote jab over free speech

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson drew fire from an unlikely colleague on Tuesday over her lone dissent in the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision finding Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” for minors violated free speech rights. Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan criticized Jackson for failing to acknowledge case law that governs when speech can be regulated in the medical field, marking a rare public break between two justices typically aligned in cases centered on high-profile cultural issues.  “Justice Jackson’s dissenting opinion claims that this is a small, or even nonexistent, category,” Kagan wrote in a footnote of a concurring opinion, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined. “But even her own opinion, when listing laws supposedly put at risk today, offers quite a few examples.” Kagan, an Obama appointee, said Jackson’s view “rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.” SUPREME COURT SKEPTICAL OF “CONVERSION THERAPY” LAW BANNING TREATMENT OF MINORS WITH GENDER IDENTITY ISSUES The 8-1 decision on Tuesday arose from a lawsuit brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed Christian therapist, who argued her conversations with youth clients were a form of protected speech. The Colorado government had said the conversations amounted to professional conduct that the state was allowed to regulate. Jackson’s fiery 35-page dissent, which she read from the bench when the high court announced the opinion, was longer than the majority opinion and Kagan’s concurrence combined. “Professional medical speech does not intersect with the marketplace of ideas: ‘In the context of medical practice we insist upon competence, not debate,’” Jackson, a Biden appointee wrote, later adding, “Treatment standards exist in America.” Jackson issued an ominous warning about national implications of the case, as about two dozen other states have laws similar to Colorado’s and will now need to take into account the high court’s ruling. SUPREME COURT BLOCKS COLORADO’S SO-CALLED ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’ BAN ON FIRST AMENDMENT GROUNDS “Ultimately, because the majority plays with fire in this case, I fear that the people of this country will get burned,” Jackson said. “Before now, licensed medical professionals had to adhere to standards when treating patients: They could neither do nor say whatever they want.” One conservative lawyer on social media observed that Kagan seemed “exasperated” by Jackson, who has become known as a verbose justice inclined to tack on lengthy solo dissents to the majority’s opinions in prominent cases. Manhattan Institute’s Ilya Shapiro agreed. “That should be a separate descriptor of an opinion: concurring, dissenting, expressing exasperation with Justice Jackson,” Shapiro wrote on X. Kagan joined the eight justices in finding that the Colorado government erred in regulating Chiles’ practice because the state used a 2019 law that only banned therapists from counseling minors if the therapy entailed advising them on how to resist becoming transgender or gay. That amounted to restricting one viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment, the majority said. Kagan said that if the law were “content-based” rather than “viewpoint-based,” it would present less of a free speech problem. “Because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward,” Kagan said. “It would, however, be less so if the law under review was content-based but viewpoint neutral.” Jackson argued that Chiles was “not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional.” The Supreme Court’s ruling was narrow, as Justice Neil Gorsuch explained in the majority opinion, as it directed the lower court to reexamine the Colorado law and ensure it did not interfere with Chiles’ speech rights. “The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” Gorsuch wrote. “It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”

Trump admin eases asylum freeze for vetted migrants, keeps bans on ‘high-risk’ nations

Trump admin eases asylum freeze for vetted migrants, keeps bans on ‘high-risk’ nations

The Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday it is slackening restrictions on asylum applications set in place after an Afghan asylee allegedly murdered one West Virginia National Guardsman and gravely wounded another in Washington last fall. The November incident near Farragut Square led President Donald Trump to crack down on allowing asylum seekers into the country, and the administration hammered more lax Biden-era policies that allowed Afghans such as the suspect into the country. A DHS spokesperson told Fox News Digital that the stringent screening process itself will not change, nor will restrictions on emigrants from a list of “high-risk” countries. “Under the leadership of President Trump, maximum screening and vetting for all aliens continues unabated,” the spokesperson said. DOJ ACCUSES COURTS OF UNDERCUTTING EXECUTIVE POWER IN HIGH-STAKES SUPREME COURT BORDER CASE “USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) has lifted the adjudicative hold for thoroughly screened asylum seekers from non-high-risk countries. This move allows resources to focus on continued rigorous national security and public safety vetting for higher-risk cases.” Some of the 39 countries the administration deemed lacking in the provision of adequate screening and vetting information to U.S. officials still include Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, Niger, Yemen, Syria, Somalia and Sierra Leone; the latter being where two different migrants named Jalloh, accused of recent violent crimes in Virginia, hailed from. JUSTICE JACKSON AUTHORS UNANIMOUS SCOTUS OPINION HANDING TRUMP AN IMMIGRATION WIN “Since taking office, President Trump has prioritized national security and public safety by implementing a series of executive orders and proclamations that mandate strict screening and vetting of foreign nationals seeking entry or immigration benefits,” USCIS said in a statement. The agency said that security gaps in applications for naturalization or permanent residency exposed serious public safety risks and endangered the integrity of the U.S. immigration system. “[A]pplications were approved and individuals were naturalized who should not have been,” the agency said. The latest move is expected to have limited impact on the situation, according to The Hill newspaper, but will still ease the overall restrictive environment.

Venezuela’s ‘Chavismo’ movement faces a crossroads after US attack

Venezuela’s ‘Chavismo’ movement faces a crossroads after US attack

A new economic partner? Libertad Velasco, a Chavista who grew up in the 23 de Enero neighbourhood, was only a teenager when Chavez came to power. She went on to become one of the founding members of the youth wing of Chavez’s party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). Eventually, she became the head of a government agency to expand access to higher education to members of vulnerable communities. Still, Velasco described the period after Maduro’s abduction as a sort of awakening. “It’s like we’re looking at ourselves without makeup,” Velasco said. “Now, everything is laid bare, revealed in its purest state, and we are beginning to recognise ourselves again.” Since the US attack and Maduro’s removal, Velasco has thought deeply about her “red lines”: the ideals she feels should not be violated under the new government. Standing up against invasive foreign powers remains one of her top priorities. “I refuse to be colonised,” Velasco said. “For me, we shouldn’t have relations with Israel, and abandoning anti-imperialism is non-negotiable.” Yet Velasco does not believe that the Venezuelan government has crossed that line yet. Rather, she is open to the prospect of the US as a trading partner to Venezuela, paying for access to its natural resources. “It is a customer who should pay market price for the product they need. If Venezuela must act as a market player to lift people out of suffering, I can go along with that,” Velasco said. Delia Bracho of Caricuao, Venezuela, says she has grown disillusioned with the Chavismo movement [Catherine Ellis/Al Jazeera] But it is unclear whether that is happening. Critics point out that the Trump administration has demanded greater control over Venezuela’s natural resources. It has even claimed that Chavez stole Venezuelan oil from US hands. Already, Venezuela has surrendered nearly 50 million barrels of oil to the US, with the Trump administration splitting the proceeds between the two countries. Rodriguez, Venezuela’s interim president, has also agreed to submit a monthly budget to the US for approval. Among Chavistas, there remains debate about whether the relationship with the US is beneficial or exploitative. But economic recovery is an overwhelming priority for many Venezuelans of all political leanings. Under Maduro, Venezuela entered one of its worst economic crises in history. Inflation is currently at 600 percent, and living standards remain low. Many Chavista loyalists blame US sanctions for their economic woes. Yet, analysts credit a combination of factors, including declining oil prices, economic mismanagement and pervasive corruption. Delia Bracho, 68, lives in a district of Caracas called Caricuao, where water is delivered just once a week. Once a committed Chavista, she said her faith in the movement has faded. Today’s movement, she explained, has been “ruined”, and she no longer wants anything to do with it. “It’s like when you put on a pair of shoes,” she said. “They break, and you throw them away. Are you going to pick them up again, knowing they are no longer useful?” Despite her initial fear after the US intervention, Bracho said she now feels cautiously optimistic that Venezuela might change for the better. “It’s not that everything is fixed, but there is a different atmosphere — one of hope.” Adblock test (Why?)

LIVE: Bosnia vs Italy – World Cup 2026 qualifying final

LIVE: Bosnia vs Italy – World Cup 2026 qualifying final

blinking-dotLive MatchLive Match, Follow our live build-up with full team news coverage before our text commentary stream of the FIFA decider. Published On 31 Mar 202631 Mar 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)

Cuba crisis explained: Who holds power, and could Diaz-Canel be replaced?

Cuba crisis explained: Who holds power, and could Diaz-Canel be replaced?

Cuba is facing one of its worst crises in decades, as the Caribbean island contends with nationwide blackouts, fuel shortages and growing political uncertainty. The crisis comes as the United States increases pressure on the communist government in Havana. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list As recently as Friday, US President Donald Trump hinted that he might attack Cuba, following military operations in Venezuela and Iran. “I built this great military. I said, ‘You’ll never have to use it.’ But sometimes you have to use it. And Cuba is next,” he said. Trump’s threats have raised questions about the future of Cuba’s leadership and whether political change could be on the horizon. Here is what to know about the US campaign against Cuba’s government and the powerful figures who lead Havana: What is happening in Cuba? Nearly every aspect of Cuban society is under strain amid a de facto US oil blockade. The island relies on imported oil to generate electricity and run public transport. But fuel shipments have largely stopped since January. On January 11, Trump announced that no more oil or funding would come from Cuba’s close ally Venezuela, following a US attack on that country. Then, on January 29, he issued an executive order threatening tariffs against any country that supplies Cuba with fuel. Since then, only one tanker has reached the island: On Tuesday, a Russian vessel carrying 730,000 barrels of oil arrived in Havana’s harbour. But it is unclear how far one ship will go in addressing the island’s oil crisis. The depletion of the island’s fuel supply has pushed the nation’s already fragile infrastructure past its breaking point. Advertisement In March alone, Cuba faced two island-wide blackouts, as well as regional power outages. Analysts have blamed both US policy and ongoing problems with Cuba’s ageing power grid. But the result has left nearly 10 million Cubans in complete darkness. Residents walk down a street during a national power outage in Havana, Cuba, on March 21 [Ernesto Mastrascusa/EPA] The effects are being felt across daily life. The fuel shortage is disrupting water systems and food distribution across the island. Litter is piling up in Havana because rubbish trucks lack fuel. Hospitals are limiting surgeries. Public transport has been reduced. And many people have resorted to using wood fires to cook and heat water. Reporting from Havana, journalist Ed Augustin told Al Jazeera’s The Take that the crisis is “absolutely eviscerating every part of life”. In Havana, residents face blackouts lasting up to 15 hours a day, while in some rural areas, outages can last far longer, sometimes stretching into more than a full day without electricity. “Cubans are living in unbearable conditions, and that is clearly part of what this policy is designed to do,” Augustin said. A person shines a torch during a power outage in Havana, Cuba, on March 4, 2026 [Ernesto Mastrascusa/EPA] What is the human cost of the fuel shortage? The United Nations has warned of a possible humanitarian “collapse” in Cuba as a result of the fuel shortages. Journalists like Augustin warn that there is a human cost to steep economic sanctions like those the US has imposed on Cuba. “It’s worth pointing out: Sanctions kill,” Augustin said. “There’s a lot of academic literature that show that sanctions kill.” He pointed to a 2025 study in The Lancet Global Health journal, which estimated that 564,000 excess deaths each year were linked to economic sanctions. Augustin added that children are especially vulnerable. “I’ve been going to various Cuban hospitals, and the Cuban doctors are telling me that the infant mortality rate this year is rising,” Augustin said. “And it’s rising because staff can’t get to work, because there are no buses. It’s rising because cleaners can’t get to work, so more children and mothers are getting sepsis. It’s because prenatals [vitamins] and folic acid are not getting to mothers. Milk is not getting to children.” Faced with international criticism, Trump in recent weeks has signalled he may loosen the oil embargo, allowing a Russian vessel to reach Havana. Mexico too has indicated it may resume oil shipments to Cuba. Advertisement How long have Cuba and the US been at odds? Current tensions with Cuba stretch back to the Cold War, when the US took an adversarial stance against left-wing governments throughout the Americas. The Cuban Revolution in the 1950s led to the overthrow of a US-backed, military-led government, and by the early 1960s, the US had placed the island under a comprehensive trade embargo, designed to weaken Havana’s new communist leadership. “No country in modern history, at least since the French Revolution, has been sanctioned as long as Cuba has been sanctioned,” Augustin said. But the pressure has intensified under President Trump, who tightened economic restrictions on Cuba during his first term, from 2017 to 2021. Since returning to office in 2025, Trump has labelled Cuba an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US security and has threatened a “takeover” of the island. The energy blockade is part of that campaign, Augustin explained. “The US is purposely de-industrialising Cuba,” Augustin said. “By targeting energy, it’s targeting all of the infrastructure on which life depends.” Who holds power in Cuba? Although Miguel Diaz-Canel is Cuba’s president, power in Cuba does not sit with the presidency alone. Cuba is a one-party state, and the most powerful institution in the country is the Communist Party of Cuba, which is defined in its constitution as the “leading force of the state and society”. In practice, this means the party — not the government — sets the country’s political direction. While Diaz-Canel is the secretary-general of Cuba’s Communist Party, analysts say there are signals he might not be the one deciding the country’s future. The US and Cuba are currently in negotiations, and reports have emerged that the Trump administration is pressuring other powerful Cuban leaders to remove Diaz-Canel from power. “Politically, I think what is happening is that we are seeing the real