Updated 13 hours ago - Politics & Policy Trump admin cracks down on pro-Palestinian protests at colleges Rebecca Falconer , Russell Contreras facebook (opens in new window) twitter (opens in new window) linkedin (opens in new window) email (opens in new window) President Donald Trump listens as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Trump at the White House in April. Photo: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the State Department is "reviewing the visa status" of pro-Palestinian protesters who occupied Columbia University's main library in Manhattan on Wednesday evening. Why it matters: Rubio's announcement builds on President Trump's January order, titled "Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism," to remove international students who've joined protests and a direction for institutions and "monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff." The secretary of state's action comes as the Trump administration's Task Force to Combat Antisemitism reviews the University of Washington over a pro-Palestinian protest that saw some 30 students arrested on Monday after they occupied a Seattle campus building. Trump vowed in March to stop the federal funding of any schools or university that allows "illegal protests," and the White House said the president had promised to "Deport Hamas Sympathizers and Revoke Student Visas." The administration's action this week underscores that to enforce Trump's order, it will go after student protesters at individual colleges. Details: "We are reviewing the visa status of the trespassers and vandals who took over Columbia University's library," Rubio said on X. "Pro-Hamas thugs are no longer welcome in our great nation." The big picture: Columbia students were among the first to set up encampments as protests against the treatment of Palestinian citizens during the Israel-Hamas war swept U.S. college campuses last year. The college agreed to increase safety measures in a lawsuit settlement with a Jewish student who felt threatened and their education disrupted by the campus protests. Some Jewish students who've taken part in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia told Al Jazeera on Wednesday they feel antisemitism is being "weaponized" and said their activism "is driven by their faith." Between the lines: Rubio is citing a rarely used provision in U.S. law to try to remove legal residents for their pro-Palestinian speech. The intrigue: The Trump administration's push to cast pro-Palestinian protesters as Hamas supporters — and then use anti-terrorism and immigration laws to quiet campus demonstrations — was forecast in a little-known plan last year from the creators of Project 2025. That plan, dubbed "Project Esther," was reflected in the White House's moves to arrest Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil, a protest leader, and pull about $400 million in federal funding from the university over antisemitism allegations. It was produced by the Heritage Foundation, the conservative group behind Project 2025, and took aim at what it called antisemitism on college campuses. Trump appears to have adopted many of the suggestions in Project Esther.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment