Wasn’t the war “almost over”? Then why do you need automatic military draft registration?

The last time a military draft was in effect in the United States was in February 1973, during the Vietnam War, the most unpopular war in the nation’s history. Around 1.9 million men were selected for military service between 1964 and 1973. For context, 2.8 million were drafted during World War I, and around 10.1 million were drafted during World War II.

Now, “young, eligible men” will be automatically registered for the military draft pool in the U.S. starting in December as part of a measure no one seems to have read in the defense policy bill Congress signed into law late last year.

According to the Selective Service System’s 2024 report, automatic registration is already in place in 46 states and territories. However, the SSS proposed a rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs late last month to implement the practice nationwide, according to CNN.

An educated guess would suggest the Trump administration already knew it wanted to be in a world-scale conflict for a long time, or at least until next year.

However, CNN says “the nationwide measure has no connection to the ongoing war with Iran and was passed with bipartisan support months before the current conflict with the country. But the Trump administration has declined to rule out the possibility of putting U.S. troops on the ground, and the war has led to renewed attention on the draft policy.”

That is, if you believe CNN.

On the other hand, according to The New York Times, government officials are bracing for what experts say are “potential confrontations with China or Russia” at a moment when military recruiting “has slumped.”

What happens now?

First, failing to comply with the draft is a felony, which carries various penalties. According to The New York Times, these include up to five years in prison and the inability to receive certain federal benefits, such as government loans.

The logical reasoning is simple: if you are not planning to wage war, you do not really need a larger army, do you? In fact, in decades past, a country used to be proud of not needing an army at all. However, these are quasi-unprecedented times, right?

This, however, does not mean young, able Americans will be drafted. This is just a preemptive move, “just in case.”

As the Times continues, during a March 8 interview on Fox News, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Mr. Trump “does not remove options off the table” when asked what she would tell mothers worried about the draft returning.

Leavitt also said at the time that sending ground troops into Iran was not part of the “current plan.” That was over a month ago, and before the U.S. president drew the world to the edge of its seat in a countdown to a possible nuclear conflict.

Others argue that “even if boots were to be put on the ground, it is very unlikely a draft would return. This is because America already has one of the largest militaries in the world, so currently it doesn’t need any soldiers who don’t already want to be there.”

While the president would be required to get approval from Congress to enact a military draft, which was last used during the Vietnam War in the early 1970s, this could be more about “money and ease.”

As reported by ABC News, in 2024, Representative Chrissy Houlahan noted that automatic registration “saves taxpayers significant money and makes it easier for these men to follow the law and register with the Selective Service.”

Does this change if you are an immigrant?

According to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, “Except as otherwise provided in this title, every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, shall be automatically registered under this Act by the Director of the Selective Service System.”

So, in short, and as Michael Grothaus explained in his column for Fast Company, if you are a man in the United States aged 18 to 26, you will be automatically registered for the draft. And this does not just include U.S. citizens. The Selective Service System says that immigrants and dual-national U.S. citizens must register, along with other cohorts.

However, this is no different from what was already required. Currently, all men ages 18 to 26 must register for the draft. The new rules mean the registration will now be automatic across the country.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear one of the most consequential immigration cases in years. On paper, it is about whether Donald Trump can use an executive order to end automatic citizenship for some babies born in the United States. In practice, it is about something much larger: whether the Court is willing to reopen one of the country’s most settled constitutional guarantees, and in doing so create a new class of children whose legal status would depend on who their parents are.

Trump’s order, signed on his first day back in office, says children born in the U.S. would no longer automatically be citizens if their parents are undocumented or in the country temporarily, including on student or work visas. Lower courts have uniformly blocked the order from taking effect, and the Supreme Court agreed to take the case before the appeals process had fully played out. A decision is expected by late June or early July.

What the Court is actually being asked to decide

The formal question is whether Trump’s order is consistent with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which says that all persons born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. For more than a century, that clause has been understood to cover nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, with only narrow exceptions such as the children of diplomats and foreign enemies. That understanding was cemented by the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

The Trump administration is asking the justices to adopt a much narrower reading. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that the 14th Amendment was meant to protect freed slaves and their children, not the children of people in the country unlawfully or temporarily, and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be read to require a more complete form of allegiance to the United States. Opponents say that it is an attempt to rewrite settled law by executive order.

That is the clean constitutional fight. But there is a second path the justices could take.

The quieter issue that could decide the whole case

As The Hill points out, the Court does not necessarily have to resolve the full constitutional question tomorrow. Congress codified birthright citizenship in federal law in 1940, and then again in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, using language that closely tracks the 14th Amendment. That gives the justices a narrower off-ramp: they could rule that Trump’s order conflicts with federal statute even if they avoid saying anything sweeping about the Constitution itself.

That point is crucial because this Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts in particular, has sometimes preferred narrower rulings when a broader constitutional one is not strictly necessary. A statutory ruling would still block Trump’s order. It would also let the Court sidestep, at least for now, a frontal collision with more than a century of constitutional understanding.

Of course, that would not end the politics. It would simply move the fight back to Congress, where Republicans have spent years trying to restrict birthright citizenship and where support for that effort has grown, even if the legislation still has not moved.

The administration’s argument is not just aggressive. It is historically loaded.

There is another reason this case feels so ominous. According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration’s Supreme Court brief leans in part on arguments advanced by late-19th-century figures such as Alexander Porter Morse, Francis Wharton, and George D. Collins, men whose campaigns against birthright citizenship were steeped in anti-Black and anti-Chinese racism. Scholars quoted by the Post say the administration is reviving ideas that emerged from efforts to narrow Reconstruction-era citizenship and keep Chinese immigrants and their children outside the national body politic.

That historical backdrop matters because it clarifies what is being presented as a technical dispute about constitutional meaning. The argument Trump is pushing did not emerge from some neutral, long-lost legal tradition. It grew out of an older effort to decide that some people born here still did not belong here.

That does not automatically decide the case. But it tells you something about what kind of history the administration has chosen to elevate, and why so many legal historians hear alarm bells in this brief.

John Eastman is back in the room, even if his name is not on the brief

And then there is the man behind the theory.

According to Politico, John Eastman has been trying to end birthright citizenship for decades. Long before he became nationally known for helping devise Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, Eastman was writing op-eds, law review articles, and testimony arguing that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to virtually everyone born on U.S. soil. Politico describes him as the longtime intellectual engine behind this effort, even though the administration’s briefs do not openly credit him.

In short, the same lawyer whose legal theories became shorthand for constitutional extremism after 2020 is also the leading evangelist for this one. That does not make the administration’s argument legally impossible on its own. But it does tell you what ideological ecosystem it comes from, and how long this project has been waiting for the right Court and the right presidency to try again.

The babies keep disappearing from the argument

One of the sharpest critiques of this case came from NPR, which noted how rarely the people most directly affected are centered in the debate. According to Bruce Lesley of First Focus on Children, this is “birth” right citizenship. This is about babies. But public argument around the case has focused instead on administrative burdens, historical meaning, political allegiance, and immigration deterrence.

NPR reports that under the current system, babies born in U.S. hospitals are automatically folded into a network of legal and administrative protections: Social Security numbers, Medicaid eligibility, food benefits, and continuity of care. If birthright citizenship were narrowed, every family could be forced into a proof regime that does not currently exist, with the citizenship of newborns depending on documents, parental status, and bureaucratic determinations made at the most vulnerable moment in a child’s life.

Regarding the consequences, NPR notes that around 3.6 million babies are born in the U.S. each year, and that all parents, not just immigrant parents, could face new documentation hurdles if automatic citizenship disappears. Lawyers have also warned of especially chaotic outcomes for babies with unknown fathers, foundlings, children born through surrogacy or assisted reproductive technology, and families whose records are incomplete or destroyed.

In the end, once you make citizenship at birth conditional, you are no longer simply arguing about constitutional text. You are building a bureaucracy of suspicion around newborns.

How many children are actually at stake

Similarly, CBS reports that the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State’s Population Research Institute estimate more than 250,000 babies each year would be affected by Trump’s order. California Attorney General Rob Bonta told CBS that between 20,000 and 24,000 babies in California alone could lose citizenship annually, while states would also lose federal funding tied to children’s eligibility for programs such as Medicaid and CHIP.

And the concern does not stop with future births. Advocates told CBS that if the Court accepts the administration’s reading of the Citizenship Clause, it could invite broader challenges to the citizenship of millions of Americans and fuel even more aggressive efforts to question who belongs. That is why opponents keep stressing that this case is not just about one executive order. It is about whether the Court opens the door to a much wider culture of doubt about citizenship.

Public opinion is split, but not in a simple way

NPR’s latest survey round-up shows the politics here are more complicated than the White House would like. General support for birthright citizenship remains relatively strong when people are asked about it as a constitutional principle, but support drops sharply when poll questions focus specifically on undocumented parents or temporary visitors. The divide is also steeply partisan and racialized: Democrats, younger voters, Black Americans, and Latinos are much more likely to support birthright citizenship, while Republicans, especially white Republicans, are much more likely to oppose it.

That split matters because it helps explain why the administration is pushing so hard on this case. Birthright citizenship is one of those issues where long-settled law collides with a public that is unevenly informed and often responsive to how the question is framed. It is also one of the clearest examples of how immigration politics in the United States works: present a constitutional guarantee as a loophole, describe newborns as incentives, and then ask the Court to do what Congress never quite managed to do.

What tomorrow’s hearing is really about

Tomorrow’s argument is nominally about text, history, and precedent. But the deeper conflict is over what kind of country the Court thinks the 14th Amendment created after the Civil War.

The traditional understanding of birthright citizenship says that if you are born here, you enter the political community here. You are not required to inherit your parents’ legal precarity. You do not begin life having to prove that you belong. That is part of what made the Citizenship Clause so powerful after Dred Scott, and part of why Wong Kim Ark became so central in the first place.

Trump’s order asks the Court to move in the opposite direction. It asks the justices to treat birthplace as insufficient, parental status as decisive, and constitutional bedrock as flexible enough to be narrowed by a president on day one.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers have gone without pay for 40 days as a partial government shutdown drags on. TSA is housed under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Senate is in a stalemate over DHS funding, with Democrats demanding accountability for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

As the shutdown drags on, Democrats have attempted 11 times to fund TSA separately, and Republicans have voted against it each time. Republicans have tried to reach a deal, but President Donald Trump demanded that Republican senators keep up the shutdown. There is a lot going on here, so let’s break it down.

President Donald Trump is threatening extraordinary actions to sidestep the Senate

The president is not immune to public perception and pressure. President Trump is known to walk back policies or comments when he sees that they are unpopular. After all, he has made a career of wanting to be liked and caring what people think about him. The mounting pressure to alleviate the long lines and wait times at airports is starting to make President Trump crack.

According to the Associated Press, the president is considering declaring a national emergency to force DHS to pay TSA workers. The move is a desperate attempt to end a partial government shutdown that is hurting the president’s polling numbers.

The president posted to Truth Social that he wants to end the chaos at the airports, and he is prepared to do whatever it takes to end the pain he has caused.

“It’s not an easy thing to do, but I am going to do it!” the president wrote.

Sixty votes are required in order for the funding to pass the Senate; senators are ready to get rid of the filibuster. Republicans need Democrats to cross party lines and vote with them to pass it. But by not negotiating in good faith, Democrats have stood strong on their demands.

Democrats are asking to rein in ICE. Democrats want three things: stricter standards around judicial warrants for arrests, ICE agents wearing body cameras, and banning ICE agents from wearing masks. Recent polling shows that Americans want the agency overhauled. Yet, like always, Republicans don’t want to work for the people.

Democrats have attempted to get the TSA paid to end the airport chaos

Democratic senators have offered 11 times to fully fund TSA, separate from the negotiations to fund DHS. Each time, Republicans have voted against the bills, creating an unnecessarily long partial shutdown. The refusal to vote to fund TSA separately has created more chaos in airports across the country. President Trump deployed ICE agents to airports to help with security, but social media posts show ICE agents hanging around like spectators.

“We can pay TSA workers right here, right now,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who offered that latest attempt to fund TSA. “Republicans are more interested in playing political games and holding the rest of DHS hostage than governing and keeping our communities safe!”

Sen. Merkley first sought unanimous consent to fund TSA directly and independently. However, Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) refused. Sen. Moreno then blocked Sen. Merkley’s second attempt to fund all of DHS except for ICE and CBP so TSA workers can get paid and negotiations can continue.

Previously, Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement to fund all of DHS, minus ICE and CBP. Republicans said they could fund ICE later with a reconciliation. This would be along party lines, guaranteeing desired funding for ICE. President Trump told Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) no deal. The decision means that President Trump personally blocked pay for TSA workers.

Even Republicans have blamed President Trump for the prolonged shutdown

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) explained in a recent interview that a deal had been reached to partially fund DHS. The bipartisan deal was seen as a victory within the Senate, but President Trump didn’t like it. Republicans were prepared to accept the deal.

“[W]e would offer a bill for reconciliation where we don’t need any Democratic votes to do whatever we wanted to do with ICE. And that way we’re out of the shutdown, and DHS is back open,” Sen Kennedy said in the interview. “Senator Thune submitted that to President Trump, as is his right. He said no. No deals with the Democrats. It would’ve worked. We could’ve had TSA paid by the end of the week. But the president said no deal.”

Whether or not he meant to, Sen. Kennedy single-handedly disproved that Republican talking point that Democrats are to blame for the TSA chaos. In one interview, he admitted that Democrats were willing to fund TSA, but President Trump wasn’t done with his political theater.

Renouncing your United States citizenship isn’t a common thing for people to do. According to data, between 5,000 and 6,000 people renounce their citizenship, and the State Department wants to make it easier. In a recent rule change, the cost of renouncing your U.S. citizenship is now $450. The announcement comes at a time when the federal government has been trying to get rid of birthright citizenship and threatening to strip people of their citizenship.

Renouncing your U.S. citizenship has never been cheaper

The State Department just dropped the cost of renouncing your U.S. citizenship from $2,350 to $450. That is an 80 percent drop in the financial cost of walking away from your citizenship. It is now back down to the original price it cost in 2010 when the U.S. started to charge citizens to renounce their citizenship. The price increased to $2,350 in 2015 when requests surged due to the changing tax responsibility for U.S. citizens living abroad.

“Many reported spending hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on tax professionals, even when they might have no U.S. tax liabilities,” an official for the State Department said, according to The New York Times. “Some stated that despite being required to comply with U.S. tax laws, they received and/or benefited from few of the services for which their taxes were collected.”

The drop in price is due to unrelenting legal pressure from the Association of Accidental Americans, which is based in France. The organization represents people living abroad who are U.S. citizens simply due to being born in the U.S. The organization filed several lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of the fee. There is a current lawsuit pending that argues that there should be no fee to renounce your citizenship.

“The Association of Accidental Americans welcomes this decision, which acknowledges the necessity of making this fundamental right accessible to all,” Fabien Lehagre, the president of the Association of Accidental Americans, said in a statement. “This victory is the direct result of six years of relentless legal action and advocacy.”

There are implications for anyone who renounces their U.S. citizenship

Renouncing your U.S. citizenship comes with implications. Once someone renounces their citizenship, they lose all rights that are given to citizens. First, people who give up their citizenship lose the right to enter, work, and live in the U.S. In the eyes of the government, once you renounce your citizenship, you are seen as a foreign national. It is seen as a permanent, irrevocable process, so don’t take it lightly.

For high-income individuals, the financial liabilities to renounce their citizenship keep growing. Currently, people who make $2 million+ net worth or $190k+ average annual income tax for 2024/2025 have to pay capital gains taxes on all property they own abroad. This is called an “exit tax.”

People are also required to file a specific tax form as their final tax return for the year they renounce. Renouncing your citizenship doesn’t wipe away tax liability debt. After all, the U.S. government wants to make sure it gets its money.

It is also important not to renounce, if you want, before having citizenship in another country. There is a risk of becoming stateless, which leaves you limited in how you can travel or receive government protection.

Renouncing your citizenship is not an easy process and requires the person to confirm multiple times that they understand the implications. The new fees are effective on April 13.

Amid the illogical war this administration has dragged us into, panic over an attack on U.S. territory, beyond its military bases in the Middle East, has started to materialize.

According to a report by ABC News, the FBI warned California police departments in recent days that Iran could launch drones against the West Coast.

“We recently acquired information that as of early February 2026, Iran allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack using unmanned aerial vehicles from an unidentified vessel off the coast of the United States Homeland, specifically against unspecified targets in California, in the event that the US conducted strikes against Iran,” the alert distributed at the end of February said. “We have no additional information on the timing, method, target, or perpetrators of this alleged attack.”

The warning reportedly came just as the Trump administration was beginning its offensive at Israel’s instruction.

So far, neither the FBI nor the White House has commented on the matter

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office told ABC News: “The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services is actively working with state, local, and federal security officials to protect our communities.”

And the LA Sheriff’s Department said that, “in light of current global events,” it is maintaining an “elevated level of readiness.”

“Out of an abundance of caution, and in recognition of current religious observances, the Department has continued increased patrols around places of worship, cultural institutions, and other prominent locations throughout the County,” the department said in a statement.

“We have proactively reviewed our deployment plans, enhanced coordination with our patrol stations, and ensured that additional resources are available should they be needed.”

Can Iran really attack the United States?

According to the Los Angeles Times, a source with knowledge of the memo who was not authorized to discuss it publicly said the warning was issued based on intelligence received by the U.S. Coast Guard. Law enforcement sources with intelligence experience said such alerts are cautionary in nature.

The source, who is experienced in counterterrorism, said: “It’s not been deemed credible at this time.”

The sources stressed that the warning was precautionary and that there was no indication that Iran was planning an attack or could successfully launch one.

Intelligence suggests that Iran considered using unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, launched from unidentified ships off the West Coast of the United States. This is considered a “hybrid” or “asymmetric” option, since Iran lacks missiles with the range necessary to reach the continental United States from its own territory.

Multiple law enforcement sources have described the intelligence as “uncorroborated” and “cautious.” There is no specific information on timing, targets, or perpetrators.

Who would benefit from an Iranian attack on U.S. soil?

In short: Trump.

Given the disapproval the current administration faces among voters, many speculate that the only way the Republican Party could win the midterm elections would be if they were suspended. To do so, the only strategy at hand would be to declare a national emergency.

For several weeks, a draft executive order proposing exactly that has been circulating among government allies.

According to PBS, the 17-page proposal would give Trump extraordinary power over the 2026 midterm elections. The proposal claims to address electoral integrity issues caused by foreign interference. By declaring a national emergency, according to the document’s hypothesis, the president could take control of some voting mechanisms in the country, including requiring manual recounts of votes and voter identification at the polls.

As PBS continued, the U.S. Constitution makes clear that states administer elections, while Congress has only a limited oversight role in regulating how states conduct federal elections. This proposal would expand federal control over elections and would be challenged in court almost immediately. Since The Washington Post first reported on the draft, experts have shared concerns that such a proposal would be unconstitutional and beyond the president’s authority.

Could this actually happen?

Since 2016, Donald Trump has shown that even the worst-case scenarios are possible. Ten years later, in the middle of the worst global conflict seen in years, it would be naive to dismiss the ideas swirling around the president.

As explained by the Brennan Center for Justice, just hours after launching the Iran war, Trump reposted a headline on Truth Social claiming, “Iran tried to interfere in the 2020 and 2024 elections to stop Trump, and now faces renewed war with the United States.”

The New York University School of Law Center explained how governments, especially authoritarian regimes, often use crises to try to manipulate elections. In Hungary, for example, there is growing fear that Viktor Orbán will use Russia’s war against Ukraine to distort or delay voting in that country. In this case, Trump has been trying for months to justify his increasing efforts to interfere in our elections.

What better excuse than an attack on national territory?

While the U.S. president plays tin soldiers with Israel in Iran, back at home, people are scratching their heads and looking for alternatives just to afford healthcare.

And it is all part of the same protocol: disenfranchise less affluent communities while the 1% gets richer and richer.

A rise in healthcare costs has been anticipated for months

According to CNN, millions of Americans received an unpleasant reminder in January of how expensive healthcare coverage is. Workers enrolled in Obamacare and Medicare learned of steeper-than-usual increases in their health insurance premiums for 2026.

This year, employers’ healthcare costs are expected to rise by 9%, the largest increase in several years, the outlet reported. Consultants say employers will try to soften the blow to workers, at least to some extent. Premiums for the Affordable Care Act’s benchmark plan shot up 26% on average, one of the largest increases since Obamacare plans were first introduced more than a decade ago.

According to a health policy research group, enrollees' actual premium payments are expected to skyrocket by an average of 114% due to the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies.

And Medicare Part B premiums, which cover doctor visits, outpatient hospital services, and other care, shot up nearly 10% this year. That is the largest increase in four years and the second largest increase, in monetary terms, in the program’s history. The standard monthly premium is now $202.90, up $17.90 from last year, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Why is this happening?

CNN reported that while the employer market, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act each have their own specific reasons for premium increases, many common factors are driving up monthly bills for policyholders.

One of the main reasons is that Americans have been seeing doctors more often in recent years and, in some cases, receiving more intensive treatments.

This increase in utilization is partly due to people postponing medical care during the pandemic, which has led to some diseases being diagnosed at more advanced stages in some patients, according to experts.

In addition, the growth of medical clinics and telehealth providers has made it easier to access health services, according to Sunit Patel, chief health and benefits actuary at Mercer in the United States. There is also a growing range of providers, such as physician assistants, treating patients.

Like insurers, hospitals have also merged and absorbed other medical service providers, including doctors’ offices, outpatient centers, and laboratories. According to KFF, by 2023, hospital care in nearly half of metropolitan areas was controlled by one or two health systems.

And by 2024, 55% of physicians were employed by hospitals.

Hospital consolidation has led to higher prices, while hospital acquisitions of medical practices also tend to drive up costs, according to a 2022 RAND study.

Meanwhile, the government prefers to give money to ICE

As reported by the ACLU in August of last year, Congress voted to cut Medicaid and “defund” Planned Parenthood to finance the president’s anti-immigrant agenda.

Early last summer, Congress passed the most damaging budget in a generation. H.R. 1, or the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” made the largest cut to Medicaid since its creation in the 1960s and allocated that money to fund President Donald Trump’s racist and anti-immigrant agenda.

As the ACLU explained, instead of strengthening Medicaid, Congress slashed it. Instead of curbing the abuses of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Congress gave the agency billions more to terrorize our communities and detain families.

“Medicaid is a critical resource across the country, especially for children and people with disabilities. Politicians’ vote to cut Medicaid, a program that provides coverage for an estimated 70 million patients, means that in every single state and congressional district, people are closer to rationing medication, missing essential medical treatments, and losing access to the care they need,” the ACLU wrote.

“Unsurprisingly, the most vulnerable among us will feel the brunt, including 12 million people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid. Medicaid coverage is a linchpin to ensure people can exercise their right to live in their own homes, rather than dehumanizing institutions. Denying these supports and care forces people into institutions, stripping them of the liberty and autonomy our Constitution protects.”

The outlook does not look like it will improve

According to Patrick Aguilar, managing director of health at Washington University in St. Louis, the “Great Healthcare Plan” announced by the administration in January does not appear to solve anything.

Aguilar argues that U.S. healthcare remains the most expensive in the world because it operates within a deeply complex system shaped by competing financial incentives, political constraints, and behavioral responses from drugmakers, insurers, hospitals, and patients.

Prescription drug prices stay high due to costly and risky research and development, patent protections and extensions, and the role of pharmacy benefit managers whose rebate-driven model can incentivize higher list prices. Proposals such as most-favored-nation pricing may lower costs in the short term, but they risk reducing innovation or raising prices abroad.

Efforts to increase price transparency have produced mixed results, as hospitals often fail to comply or adjust prices strategically, and patients still struggle to understand the true costs.

Insurance premiums continue to rise because they reflect overall healthcare spending and depend on maintaining a broad risk pool. When subsidies expire, and healthier people drop coverage, premiums climb further.

Ultimately, Aguilar concludes that reform is difficult because each intervention triggers counter moves within a fragmented system, making cost control politically and economically challenging.

But challenging for whom?

The president is very upset that Anthropic refused to allow the federal government to use its technology for mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons. The decision by the tech company angered President Donald Trump, who directed government agencies to stop working with Anthropic. Instead, the federal government will now work with OpenAI, Anthropic’s competitor. The rushed deal with OpenAI has experts and critics scratching their heads. Here’s what we know about OpenAI’s new federal contract.

Anthropic told the federal government no, and President Trump got big mad

The federal government is ending its contract with Anthropic in favor of working with OpenAI. It wasn’t a business decision or about saving money for the government. The switch is because Anthropic executives refused to bend the company’s ethics to allow unrestricted use of its technology.

The demand came from Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The former Fox News personality gave the San Francisco-based AI company one week to agree to allow its technology to be used for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. In a rare show of strength from a U.S. company, Anthropic denied the request from Sec. Hegseth, launching a bitter smear campaign.

President Trump ordered all government agencies to stop all work with Anthropic. The Pentagon, led by Sec. Hegseth added to the smear campaign by designating Anthropic “a supply chain risk.” The designation means that Anthropic is being accused of being a source of vulnerability or a source of disruption. It also causes reputational harm, with businesses thinking twice before working with a supply chain risk.

“We held to our exceptions for two reasons,” reads a statement published by Anthropic. “First, we do not believe that today’s frontier AI models are reliable enough to be used in fully autonomous weapons. Allowing current models to be used in this way would endanger America’s warfighters and civilians. Second, we believe that mass domestic surveillance of Americans constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.”

OpenAI rushed a deal with the federal government

OpenAI quickly responded to news of Anthropic offering its services. Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, claims that the deal between the company and the federal government comes with red lines. Altman has stated that the deal makes clear that the technology can’t be used for mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons.

“In our agreement, we protect our red lines through a more expansive, multi-layered approach,” reads a statement from OpenAI. “We retain full discretion over our safety stack, we deploy via cloud, cleared OpenAI personnel are in the loop, and we have strong contractual protections. This is all in addition to the strong existing protections in U.S. law.”

However, critics aren’t buying it.

The language for the red lines is intentionally vague. In the deal, it states that the technology can be used for “all lawful purposes,” which can be interpreted in myriad ways by federal agencies. Language from the agreement shared by OpenAI seems to offer some wiggle room for the federal government to eventually use the technology for autonomous weapons.

“The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols,” reads a publicly released part of the agreement. It later states, “Per DoD Directive 3000.09 (dtd 25 January 2023), any use of AI in autonomous and semi-autonomous systems must undergo rigorous verification, validation, and testing to ensure they perform as intended in realistic environments before deployment.”

AI has a terrifying track record for military simulations

Kenneth Payne, Professor of Strategy at King’s College London, recently ran a test pitting AI against each other in war games. Payne used GPT 5.2, Claude 4, and Gemini 3 Flash and put them into a simulated war. During the 21 games, AI chose nuclear escalation 95 percent of the time. The AIs wrote explanations about why it chose to escalate. According to the study, it was just a logical escalation.

“The tactical threshold was crossed readily: 95 percent of games saw at least some tactical nuclear use,” the study explains. “Models discussed tactical nuclear use as a legitimate coercive tool, treating it as an extension of conventional escalation rather than a categorical boundary.”

There is debate about why the AI programs so easily recommended a nuclear threat. Some believe that it is because humans have a very limited history and understanding of nuclear weapons. This, in turn, means that AI, created by humans, has very limited knowledge as well. Others think that AI doesn’t have the same fear about nuclear weapons as humans do.

Fortunately, the AI models only used it as a tactical response. The threat was enough for the AIs to use regularly without causing damage. However, it did choose three strategic nuclear strikes. One was on purpose, and the other two were by accident.

The contents of the Epstein files are undoubtedly the clearest evidence of how corrupt the world order system is. So much so that the millions of documents expose such an intricate network that journalists, investigators, and curious minds have had their eyes glued to their screens for a week.

However, amid all the scandal, the footnotes—often crucial—are getting lost in the noise. One of them is the mention of the Sinaloa Cartel in the complaint summaries. That mention appears alongside the phrase “high-profile sex parties and dealings with cartels.”

Are we surprised by the association of violence, sex, abuse, and drugs with the Sinaloa Cartel? No. Are we struck by the focus on Epstein’s tentacles further south of the border? Absolutely.

Let us explain why.

What the Sinaloa Cartel is, and why its name matters here

The Sinaloa Cartel is one of the oldest criminal organizations in the region, with its first generation dating back to the 1960s. After strengthening itself during the 1980s and forging a key alliance with the Juárez Cartel in the 1990s, it expanded its influence across the continent. The diversification of the drugs it trafficked—including fentanyl—put it at the centre of international trafficking.

But the mainstream media and the general public became acutely aware of the cartel because of the role played by Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, considered in 2003 to be Mexico’s biggest drug trafficker. El Chapo became the second most wanted man in the world after Osama Bin Laden.

Guzmán was captured in 1993, 2014, and 2015, successfully escaping each time. He was finally arrested on January 8, 2016, and extradited to the United States in January 2017, during President Donald Trump’s first term. El Chapo was tried and sentenced in February 2019 and is currently serving a life sentence.

Up to that point, everything made more or less sense.

The 2025 turn: Ovidio Guzmán’s family crosses into the U.S.

However, in May 2025, Mexican Security Secretary Omar García Harfuch confirmed that relatives of Ovidio Guzmán, El Chapo’s son, crossed the border into the United States with 17 members of his family to surrender to U.S. authorities after negotiations.

García Harfuch assured that “the family that left were not targets and were not sought by Mexican authorities.”

Independent journalist Luis Chaparro confirmed the number of 17 family members, including Ovidio’s mother and a sister, who flew from Sinaloa to Tijuana and crossed on foot on May 9, 2025, over the bridge to San Diego, California, where U.S. authorities were waiting to take them to an “unknown destination.”

According to reports, among the 17 family members who surrendered to the United States is Griselda López Pérez, ex-wife of “El Chapo” and mother of “El Ratón.” Grisel Guzmán López, another daughter of “El Chapo,” was also among those who surrendered.

In January, lawyers for Ovidio Guzmán—who is on trial in a Chicago court—confirmed that both he and another son, Joaquín Guzmán López, were in negotiations with U.S. authorities. A few days ago, it was learned that Ovidio will plead guilty to charges of money laundering, conspiracy to traffic drugs, and illegal possession of firearms after reaching an agreement.

García Harfuch added that Ovidio Guzmán is making accusations against members of other criminal groups and, therefore, considered it “obvious” that part of the cooperation agreement with the authorities included removing his family from Sinaloa, where a violent battle is being waged between factions of the cartel.

However, there were still gaps in the story that millions of documents subsequently filled.

Epstein enters: Mexico in the newly released files

The new batch of documents released last Friday contains references to Mexico and some prominent figures in the country. Mexico appears multiple times in the three million pages released Friday by the Department of Justice. Visits to Puerto Vallarta, Tulum, and Cancún are described, as well as parties with models in these destinations.

For example, in several email chains, developer Gino Yu invites Jeffrey Epstein to finance the construction of a research laboratory in Tulum, but also indicates that they could organise “one of the best parties” at that location.

Among the documents released by the Department of Justice is a complaint received by the FBI on July 19, 2019, when Epstein was already in prison in New York and a few weeks before his suicide.

A U.S. citizen, identified as Kenneth Darrell Turner, provided information about an alleged child sex trafficking ring involving Richard Marcinko, former commander of the Navy SEALs—an elite U.S. Navy team—and Earl Wayne Anthony, a former U.S. ambassador to Mexico.

According to the complaint, Turner and the Mexican federal police found a “vault” containing approximately 10,000 videos of minors from Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and some white girls who had allegedly been brought to Mexico from South Africa.

In his complaint, Turner states that at one of Marcinko’s secret locations, Turner and federal police found sex tapes and videos featuring Jeffrey Epstein, which were allegedly to be used to blackmail the financier who died in custody.

Turner claimed that he spoke with then-Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and discussed his findings with him.

“Turner stated that the Mexican president gave him the ‘go-ahead’ to contact the FBI and let them know that he had this information,” the document states.

In another document dated October 9, 2019, an FBI agent assigned to the case reported that Turner claimed to be working with Mexican authorities and a former African official.

Turner, according to the document, claimed that Marcinko was in the custody of Mexican authorities on charges related to a child sexual abuse network and that a Mexican official identified only as “Jorge” had in his possession recordings of Epstein and other U.S. citizens involved in sexual acts with children.

However, the author of this report stated that Turner had not provided any evidence to support his allegations.

A Sinaloa cartel witness links Trump to recordings and sex parties

In another complaint filed with the FBI on June 11, 2021, an alleged member of the Sinaloa cartel claims to have recordings of the U.S. president and Epstein discussing marketing strategies for sex parties at a Trump golf course.

According to the document, the complainant was a member of the Sinaloa Cartel and worked closely with Epstein and his partner and accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, which enabled him to leave the organisation.

“In the recordings, Trump stated that he was aware of the sex parties involving minors and charged the expenses to the golf course’s operating funds to finance the sex parties,” the document states.

The witness claims to have seen Robin Leach, a British television presenter, strangle a girl during one of these parties. The whistleblower claims he was aware of at least three occasions when girls were murdered and buried on the golf course, but that he received death threats if he spoke out.

The Ricardo Salinas Pliego mention

The documents also show that Epstein met Mexican billionaire Ricardo Salinas Pliego, who boasted of having a security team of 300 people.

According to an email sent to an unknown recipient on April 15, 2016, Epstein said he sat next to the owner of TV Azteca and Grupo Salinas at a dinner hosted by John Brockman—one of New York’s most influential literary editors—two years earlier.

“He told me he had 300 (people) in security for his family. That says it all,” the New York financier wrote about his encounter with Salinas Pliego.

In a subsequent message, Epstein recounts that Salinas Pliego told him he had an “island somewhere.”

Trump appears repeatedly, including alongside Sinaloa and Robin Leach

President Donald Trump was named 87 times in one of the Jeffrey Epstein case files, including a party where someone from the Sinaloa Cartel was also allegedly present.

British television presenter Robin Leach is also mentioned in connection with that party, and is accused of strangling a woman.

“A lawsuit claims to have videos of high-profile sex parties, dealings with cartels, and witnessing Robin Leach strangle a young woman to death at a party,” reads the description of document EFTA01660654.

A note in the email providing this information indicates that these are secondary allegations, not direct witnesses, and does not establish dates. Several of Epstein’s parties took place in the 1990s.

The information is part of more than three million documents released Friday by the Department of Justice, according to Assistant Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Leach was a British-American television presenter best known as the narrator of “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” from 1984 to 1995.

The documents claim that Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly acted as a madam and intermediary for sex parties or orgies, with alleged participants including Epstein, Leach, and President Trump.

The file containing several documents has multiple sealed parts, including one from a person who said they had a friend—“Leslie McMichael, who was Epstein’s personal assistant in Florida from 1986 to 1991 or 1992”—who shared with them the names of some of the guests at Epstein’s parties, including Bill Clinton and Trump.

Clinton’s name appears 11 times in the document containing parts of witness testimony about Epstein’s parties and events.

Another testimony alleges that at a party at Epstein’s mansion, there was an orgy in which Clinton and Trump were together.

The same testimony claims that a character referred to as Oren “raped her best friend, and a third brother, Tal, raped a 14-year-old girl named Katie LNU.” Adult Victoria’s Secret models were also allegedly at the parties.

A party in New Jersey, and a separate allegation involving a 13–14-year-old

Another mention of President Trump includes an allegation of sexual abuse against a 13–14-year-old girl, who was allegedly forced to perform oral sex on the now-president, who was 35 at the time.

“The friend told Alexis that she was approximately 13–14 years old when this occurred, and the friend claims that she bit President Trump… The friend was apparently hit in the face after laughing about biting President Trump,” reads one of the summaries of the allegations, marked EFTA01660679.

Another statement refers to another victim who claimed to have knowledge of multiple crimes on planes and in different states.

“[The victim] said there are recordings of prominent men, such as Epstein, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump, and that Ghislaine Maxwell is also in those videos,” says another document.

The “sex party” claim involving Sinaloa, and the reliability caveat

In document EFTA01660651, the government listed some of the activities and allegations that were made and included in the files released Friday by the U.S. government.

The files indicate that President Trump was at an Epstein “sex party” with members of the Sinaloa Cartel, which he himself declared a terrorist organization right after negotiating with them. However, the document does not indicate who was present or when the event occurred.

The complaint states that there is a video of the alleged meeting between Trump and members of the Mexican drug cartel.

However, the documents indicate that the person who provided this information was unreliable and that mandatory psychiatric evaluations were requested.

This is where the “footnote” becomes the story

Because the Epstein files are not just a catalogue of individual depravity. They are a map of proximity: to power, to money, to institutions, and to the kinds of networks that rarely leave a paper trail clean enough for the public to understand in real time.

And when the Sinaloa Cartel shows up in the same breath as allegations involving sex parties, recordings, and prominent names, it’s almost impossible not to connect the dots.