It is this state of unrest in which United States National Guardsmen have been deployed by President Donald Trump to the streets of cities all across the country: currently Los Angeles, Memphis, Tennessee, Washington, D.C. and Portland, Oregon, with attempts to send guardsmen to Chicago.

But why? National Guard deployments — at least those ordered by Trump during his second term — have been to defend United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities and suppress the protests, riots and violence that have plagued America. This violence has arisen from attempts to interfere with or prevent ICE operations, primarily those that involve the deportation of those living in the United States illegally.

Although it may seem surprising, laws such as the Insurrection Act, Code § 12406 and Section 2 of the Militia Act, allow the president to federalize the normally state-controlled National Guard. However, this is only legal in unique circumstances such as open rebellion or when it is impossible or impractical to enforce the law via other means. 

Based on these laws, it is clear to see that the legality of President Trump’s deployments of the National Guard hinge on whether or not he is able to efficiently enforce the law with the resources traditionally available to him. 

Now, it is indisputable that ICE agents have faced remarkable amounts of violence and rioting in response to their operations, which, setting aside the ethics of said ICE operations, are impediments to the enforcement of the law. Armed rioters have attacked ICE facilities with varying levels of force. Some have used rocks or fireworks with others using firearms. Larger scale riots have also broken out in Los Angeles; involving arson, vandalism and attacks on police officers, although these particular riots have been for all intents and purposes quelled. The riots in Los Angeles lasted from June 6 to July 15, 2025.

It should go without saying that rioting, omnipresent agitators and consistent violence makes it almost impossible to properly and efficiently enforce the law. But the question still remains whether or not this violence is enough to invoke the Insurrection Act and similar provisions. 

However history gives a clear answer, in the form of the 1794 Whisky Rebellions. In response to the institution of an unwanted tax, numerous Americans responded to tax collectors with violence, and in response the federal government deployed thousands of militiamen — the historical equivalent of the National Guard — to quell the violence. 

There are numerous other similar examples from across US history, such as when the National Guard or historical equivalent (such as the aforementioned state militias) including in 1954 to enforce desegregation of schools, riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 and riots over police brutality in 1992 among others. 

One of the most recent examples of National Guard deployment as law enforcement and riot control was in Los Angeles in 1992. After a high speed car chase in an attempt to evade arrest, Rodney King was pulled over by four police officers and brutally beaten. 

In response to a video of the incident, people across Los Angeles rose up, attacking citizens and property with whatever improvised weapons they could, ranging from molotov cocktails to their fists. In order to end the riots, President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act, deploying thousands of Guardsmen and other federal forces to restore order. All told, the riots lasted three days, with damages totalling more than 60 deaths and $1 billion in property damage. 

Although the 1992 Los Angeles riots and the current situation are not identical, the idea is similar, and the allowance of National Guard deployment can be used as a precedent for the moment at hand. And the precedent is for all intents and purposes the same, as they both involved use of the National Guard to counteract significant violence. Although the current violence is not quite as significant as that of past situations, it is still clear that President Trump is within his power to federalize the National Guard.

Of course, the ideal would be that the country isn’t in a place where National Guard deployments on domestic targets are even considered, but here we are. And although the thought of using the U.S. military on my fellow Americans rightfully leaves a foul taste in my mouth, we are a nation of laws, not one where violent rioters are the arbiters of justice, and if the military is the only way of enforcing this, then so be it.

The post The National Guard Has Been Deployed to American Cities. Here’s Why It’s Legal appeared first on Obsidian News | Oregon Youth Voices.

The post Photo Essay: No Kings Protest appeared first on Obsidian News | Oregon Youth Voices.

According to the directive, which bypassed earlier legislative failure in the state senate, policies must be adopted by Oregon schools before Oct. 31, then fully implemented by January. 

“This is more of a surface-level fix rather than a real preventative measure at the root of the problem,” said Matt Fox, a visual design teacher at Bend Senior High School.

Fox and other critics argue that the ban misses the real problems, such as the youths’ addiction to their phones and lack of a solid attention span. They explain that developing digital relationships and media literacy is necessary before the bans are established. 

According to Dr. Gloria Mark, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, the average person’s attention span has decreased from two and a half minutes to just 47 seconds over the last 20 years. This shift has impacted how students are able to learn, making it harder to understand complex topics or connect ideas. 

Some Oregon schools, like Bend’s Cascade Middle School, have already enacted bans. Fox noted that students with prior exposure to phone-free days struggle less with devices in high school. 

“Freshmen who have had cellphone bans in middle school have less of an issue with phones,” he explained.

Schools that have enacted similar bans have also found positive results, reflected by increasing engagement and social interaction. But educators like Fox are concerned about the lack of students’ involvement in these decisions. 

“I don’t like the idea of kids being on their phones during lunch and passing periods, not interacting and not being human,” said Fox. “But we didn’t ask students about this, there was a real lack of student voice in how this was structured.” 

When students were asked about how this order will impact their upcoming year, they expressed worries surrounding necessary communication with their peers and parents.

“I rely on my phone for communication related to club meetings, sports and other school activities,” said Kira Woodford, a rising senior at Bend Senior High School. “I think it’ll be really difficult to have the same quality in my extracurricular activities without the ability to message my peers.”

While students like Woodford worry about this policy’s practical application, educators like Fox point out that it misses the opportunity to teach students about real life responsibility.

“We’re not preparing students for the real world,” Fox said. “You need a chance to practice cellphone restriction with some guardrails in play, but not like this, where you can’t have phones at all.” 

Even in Fox’s visual design classes, phones are necessary to make calls to organize meetings, send emails and even to download images onto the school’s computers.

Fox also points to a problem beyond the classroom: the need to replace the entertainment and social connection that cellphones give students. He worries that if we suddenly rob them of this support, we will see a rise in mental health-related issues.

“We need to have more time to socialize and play games, like open gym and recess,” said Fox. He strongly recommends that the schools give screen-free alternatives that will drive social connection. 

But others, like Dr. Jared Conney, a neuroscientist and author, applauded Governor Kotek’s bold action. 

“Once phones are gone, schools gain the equivalent of one to six extra hours of instructional time per week,” Conney said. “Students are more focused, teachers are more engaged, and everyone is more connected.”

Time will tell if this research rings true in Oregon schools.

The post Kotek’s Cellphone Ban Raises Concerns appeared first on Obsidian News | Oregon Youth Voices.

As a member of Gen Z, the generation born between the late 1990s and early 2010s, I have grown up amid near-constant crises: a post-9/11 surveillance state, financial recession, climate change, mass shootings, political upheaval, a global pandemic and escalating global tensions, including renewed fears of military conflict. It’s no wonder our default coping mechanism has become a brand of humor that leans heavily on absurdism, detachment and fatalism.

This isn’t simply a quirk of internet culture. Dark or ironic humor can be a defense mechanism for anxiety or a sense of powerlessness.  However—or perhaps because of—our immersion in global events via digital media, Gen Z embodies a paradox: high awareness but inconsistent civic action. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 44% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted in the 2022 midterms, compared to approximately 67.6% of voters over 40. While Gen Z’s number was higher than in previous years, the gap highlights a generational divide between awareness and mobilization.

It’s undeniable that my generation has been flooded with information, and our propensity to peruse online platforms has made us highly opinionated on a wide range of topics. So, if we’re so passionate about the issues around us, why are we not voting? 

Gen Z’s lack of civil engagement can lead to what some call “performative nihilism,” a mindset where serious issues are acknowledged but treated as inevitable and unsolvable. This response may be shaped by years of watching institutions fail to meet challenges, from stalled climate policy to deepening economic inequality. 

The result is a kind of learned helplessness. Gen Z is politically literate, highly connected and fluent in the language of critique, but often skeptical of traditional forms of engagement. Online discourse becomes the outlet, but without coordinated offline action, the energy dissipates into apathy. We could make a thousand TikToks about why an issue matters, and although we may be spreading the word, it’s not making much of a difference. 

This is not to say Gen Z is politically inert. Many of us have participated in protests, and youth-led movements like March for Our Lives and the Sunrise Movement show that when activated, Gen Z can be a powerful force. But these efforts remain fragmented, often disconnected from broader political infrastructures and voter participation.

The challenge ahead is not only about registering more young voters or coaxing them into political parties. It’s about rebuilding trust, creating tangible pathways for agency—real, accessible steps for activism, from volunteering with impactful organizations to attending community meetings or protests—and bridging the gap between online consciousness and real-world impact. 

Our humor is not inherently a bad thing. Laughter has always been important. But if we want to shape the world we inherit—rather than merely survive it—it’s time to turn away from joking about global conflicts and start working to prevent them. The stakes are no longer theoretical, and the future will be decided by those who show up.

The post Gen Z Laughs in the Face of War appeared first on Obsidian News | Oregon Youth Voices.

As Öztürk departed from her off-campus apartment, the 30-year-old Fulbright Scholar was detained by an entourage of black-clad agents from the Department of Homeland Security. In a minute-long video captured by nearby security cameras, Öztürk was handcuffed and marched away, leaving any semblance of normalcy on the sidewalk behind her.

Öztürk, who was pursuing a doctoral degree in Child Study and Human Development at Tufts University prior to her arrest, is only one in a disturbing series of student deportations under the Trump administration. The crackdown began on March 8, when pro-Palestinian activist and former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil was detained at his home in New York City and moved to an ICE detention center in Louisiana. At the time, Khalil had a valid green card and his wife, an American citizen, was eight months pregnant.

Since then, the alarming phenomenon has spread nationwide, impacting nearly 1,700 students at Columbia, Stanford and numerous other institutions. Some, like Öztürk and Khalil, have been detained by immigration officials. Others have gone into hiding or “self-deported” due to the resounding fear of arrest.

At a glance, the individual cases seem disconnected, no more than a series of moves in Trump’s ongoing war on immigration. However, when one looks closer, many of the students whose visas have been revoked share one remarkable similarity: association with the pro-Palestine movement.

Khalil, of course, was a leader of the cause during his time as a graduate student at Columbia. Yunseo Chung, a Columbia undergraduate whose visa was revoked on March 10, and Momodou Taal, a Cornell graduate student who has fled the country, were members of similar protest groups. Özturk’s involvement is much less substantial, though she did co-author an op-ed in Tufts’ student newspaper demanding that the school recognize Palestinian oppression and cut financial ties with Israel.

While the administration has yet to share its reasoning in some of the visa revocations, many of the cases are brought under an obscure clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that “an alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.”

Though the law has never been challenged in the Supreme Court, a 1996 lower court ruling from Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, Trump’s elder sister, found it unconstitutional. In the ruling, she stated that the passage affords far too much power to the Secretary of State and poses a major risk to the freedom and futures of immigrants, even those who live in the country legally. So long as this law remains in place, immigrants must live in fear, terrified that they may soon meet Öztürk or Khalil’s fate.

Judge Trump Barry’s decision closely echoes the claims of the clause’s modern opponents, including the 19 state attorney generals who have urged a federal judge to block further visa cancellations: The wording is simply too vague, allowing for unfettered executive power over deportations and interfering with personal freedom in the process. After all, how can a democracy constructed on the idea of self-determination allow a single man, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to determine the futures of the nearly 48 million immigrants in our country? That doesn’t sound like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to me.

More specific threats to freedom, namely those laid out in the Constitution, must also be taken into consideration. The First Amendment, a document which largely shapes our country’s democracy and legal process, sets aside five crucial rights: free speech, free press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and the freedom to petition the government. 

Was Khalil not exercising his Constitutional right to free speech and assembly when he participated in pro-Palestine protests at Columbia? Was Öztürk’s op-ed not protected under freedom of the press? America is built on the ideal of freedom, but if our country was truly free, participating in a protest or co-authoring an article in a student newspaper would not be considered a threat to national security.

Beyond the blatant constitutional violations, the detentions of Öztürk, Khalil and others set an unfortunate precedent for our colleges and universities, whose school environments are enriched by the presence of international students. By threatening the students’ ability to study in the United States, the Trump administration has jeopardized the incredible exchange of cultures and knowledge that occurs on America’s college campuses.

“For me, it’s pretty sad, because I feel like having a chance to study abroad is just amazing,” said Maëlys Wayaffe, a Belgian exchange student attending Summit High School. “You share cultures, languages, and I just think it’s a really great thing.”

Without international students, our universities will be missing a richness of perspectives that they cannot live without. These students remind us that the world is so much wider than the borders of the United States. They remind us that there is more to the pursuit of knowledge than simply reaffirming our own opinions. Perhaps the Trump administration could learn a valuable lesson from them.

The restriction of international students from our campuses is more than a threat to education — it directly undermines  the ideals on which our nation is built. It is a threat to free speech and freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the freedom to learn as we please. Khalil, Öztürk and the hundreds of other international students who have been threatened with deportation may not be citizens of our country, but we must protect them nonetheless. After all, if their fundamental freedoms are ignored, then what will prevent the administration from ignoring the freedom of all immigrants or, perhaps, all Americans?

The post Student Deportations Call First Amendment Into Question appeared first on Obsidian News | Oregon Youth Voices.

More than 300 people gathered at Drake Park in downtown Bend on Jan. 18 to speak out about their fears and frustrations. The Uniting Our Voices event was inspired by The National People’s March and Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service. 

It was a brisk morning with sunny skies, people were bundled up in warm clothing. A myriad of people of all ages and demographics were there, engaging with the speakers. Apprehension and frustration was shown in the people’s expressions. Signs lay about, featuring slogans such as “My body, my choice,” and “This will comb over.”

The first speech acknowledged all of our lived realities and how we need to unite and listen to each other. At one point, the speaker, Chela Sloper, held up a sign reading, “If you’re not saying Black Lives Matter, you’re probably not thinking it.” She also discussed the template of America (white, straight, English-speaking, Protestant) and how we need to reconfigure our understanding of what an “American” is.

The second speech was delivered by a local teacher named Amy Sabbadini. Sabbadini talked of her family’s experiences in the 1930s being Jewish in Italy. She also spoke out about local Ku Klux Klan activity against Catholic immigrants during the 1930s. This may be surprising considering what most of our history has told, but Oregon has had its fair share of racism. That is part of the reason why Sabbadini asked that we protect people the same way her family was protected by her fellow Italians. Sabbadini encouraged people to help their community members, support local journalism and speak up about injustice. 

 “We fight authoritarianism by linking arms, by seeking peaceful solutions and by expanding opportunities. When we build longer tables instead of higher walls, when we refuse to demonize our neighbors, we defeat authoritarianism,” stated Sabbadini. 

The speeches continued, describing the fears around immigration, bodily autonomy and the environment. Poems and songs were sung along with the speeches. 

The post Community Unites Against Division appeared first on Obsidian News | Oregon Youth Voices.

Immigration: “Believe me, it’s gonna work. Walls work.”

Within a week and a half of being in office, Trump has already signed multiple executive orders and acts that will change and endanger the lives of immigrants living in the United States. On Jan. 20, his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship, a decision that he had mentioned during his first term in office. However, District Judge John Coughenour blocked the order and called it “blatantly unconstitutional.” It has been in the U.S. Constitution since 1868 that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Getting rid of this constitutional right would require amending the Constitution, which has not happened since 1992. 

A little over a week later Trump signed a memorandum on Jan. 29 to prepare Guantánamo Bay in Cuba to house thousands of immigrants. Trump stated that “We have 30,000 beds in Guantánamo to detain the worst criminal illegal aliens threatening the American people. This will double our capacity immediately.” The facility is currently used to house Muslim militants and terrorist suspects and is known for torture and injustice. In an article published by Amnesty International last March, a former prisoner, Mansoor Adayfi, who was kidnapped and taken to Guantánamo Bay as a teenager described it as “a crime against humanity. People died there. People were tortured. People were paralyzed. All kinds of torture, abuse, physical, mental, psychological.” 

The president of Cuba, Miguel Diaz-Canel also called Trump’s decision an “act of brutality” and mentioned how the immigrants would be placed next to the torture and illegal detention that the facility is known for. 

Trans rights: “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”

One of the most glaring changes in the wake of Trump’s inauguration is the rapid and devastating erosion of transgender rights. Trump launched his term by releasing an executive order establishing two sexes and refuting the idea that one’s gender identity can contradict their sex assigned at birth. This order is particularly damaging to the nonbinary community. Those who exist outside the gender binary, and intersex people, whose sex characteristics do not fit the traditional definitions of male and female. The blatant erasure of these groups sends a clear message: they will not be welcome under the Trump administration.

The same clear exclusion can also be seen in an executive order signed Monday, which prevents transgender Americans from serving in the armed forces. This order claims that “radical gender ideology” has weakened our country’s military and that simply existing as a trans person “is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

On Tuesday, Trump signed a third executive order preventing transgender teens across the country from receiving gender-affirming care. This blanket ban, which follows a series of state-level attacks on gender-affirming care for trans youth, claims that the treatment is based on “junk science” and likens it to “a stain on our Nation’s history.” U.S. v. Skrmetti, a Supreme Court case deciding the constitutionality of such restrictions, will be decided in June. Until then, Trump’s order will have disastrous impacts on trans youth, many of whom rely on gender-affirming care for their mental health and happiness.

The language of the orders appeals to two of the most polarizing arguments against trans rights: women’s safety and protecting children. However, Trump does not care about women. He does not care about children. These orders have one goal, and that goal is to restrict the rights of trans people. In his less than two weeks in office, the president has clarified his vendetta against the trans community, and we should expect many more harmful regressions to come.

Climate Change: “We will drill, baby, drill!”

January 20, 2025—aka American Doomsday. While the political Doomsday clock may have run out of time, the Climate Clock dwindles by the second. Immediately following his inauguration declaration, Trump declared a national energy emergency, just one of the landside executive orders carried out on Capitol Hill. Trump revoked a ban imposed by President Joe Biden on new offshore oil and gas development along a majority of the country’s coastlines. Oil companies appear to embrace his agenda but don’t align with correlating radical propositions.

This active threat to the American people from high energy prices is exacerbated by our Nation’s diminished capacity to insulate itself from hostile foreign actors. In his executive order, President Trump proclaimed: 

“Energy security is an increasingly crucial theater of global competition. In an effort to harm the American people, hostile state and non-state foreign actors have targeted our domestic energy infrastructure, weaponized our reliance on foreign energy, and abused their ability to cause dramatic swings within international commodity markets.” 

In recent years, the Trump administration’s energy policies have unveiled a striking paradox: an emphasis on national energy independence while simultaneously exacerbating global climate concerns. His declaration is clearly a strategy to justify ramping up fossil fuel production at a time when renewable energy sources are rapidly advancing. The United States should not return to a reliance on oil and gas when innovations in solar, nuclear and other renewable technologies are providing cleaner, more sustainable alternatives.

Pulling out of the Paris Agreement was a significant setback in climate initiatives sought to minimize. It sends a dangerous message at a time when collaborating global efforts produce the only significant progress in the last decade. Historically, the U.S. remains the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the only agreement that will be upheld through 2029. 

A forward-thinking energy policy should embrace the potential of renewables, not sacrifice clean land for top profit. Instead of fostering an era of retrograde drilling and withdrawal from global agreements, the Trump Administration should be funding organizations and foundations focused on efficient, yet renewable energy. The future demands a commitment to sustainability, not a fleeting embrace of fossil fuels.

The World Health Organization: “Ooo, that’s a big one” 

Trump’s longstanding dissatisfaction with the World Health Organization (WHO) culminated on the president’s first day back in office in his executive order to withdraw the United States from the organization. This decision is rooted in criticism of WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and carries momentous implications for both national and international health. 

The WHO provides critical research for fighting diseases, from tuberculosis to maternal mortality. By withdrawing, the U.S. not only loses invaluable information, but WHO loses its biggest funder—something determined by a country’s population and gross domestic product (GDP). 

Although this decision is unlikely to affect us directly, at least in the immediate future, the WHO has played a key role in major health milestones, including eradicating smallpox. Without this resource, another pandemic may be far more deadly. This is particularly concerning in light of the current and rapidly-evolving threat of bird flu, which so far caused 67 confirmed cases and one death in the U.S.

Ending DEI: “Discriminatory diversity, equity and inclusion nonsense” 

On Jan. 20 and Jan. 27, Trump signed into effect two executive orders abolishing DEI programs within the federal government and in the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense. Soon after, he ordered all diversity, equity and inclusion staff within the federal government to be put on paid leave and eventually laid off.

While Trump is unable to require the same from corporations, and therefore these executive orders won’t have a direct effect on Bendites, many are following his lead. The decisions of brands like McDonald’s, Meta and Walmart to dissolve DEI programs may lead to more local changes. McDonald’s, as a common location for youth workers, is leading these effects, as they’ve already planned to disband a program that increased minorities in leadership positions and promoted diversity training.

DEI programs have allowed for the federal government to reflect our diverse nation and set an example for the leaders of corporations to do the same. The abolition of these programs will return our nation’s workplace to something disastrous, and the start of it, as seen in the federal government laying off all DEI employees, is already here. 

Changes in Government: “A Very Common Thing to Do”

Within a week, the federal government has been drastically changed, including the removal of the government watchdogs who keep authorities in check. At least 17 Inspector Generals were fired from 12 major federal agencies, although this action was unlawful in regards to the Inspector General Act that was imposed by Congress in 1978 . Inspector Generals conduct objective audits within their agency and investigate allegations of abuse of power, waste and fraud. These removals are unlawful, as Congress must be informed of the action by the president 30 days before it would be carried out, and Trump did not abide.

Jan. 6: “A Day of Love”

Trump has seemingly turned 180 degrees since the events of Jan. 6, 2021. He has transitioned from his once firm stance that the rioters should be held accountable, to now issuing a proclamation immediately pardoning all those involved in storming the capitol four years ago, keeping one of his driving campaign promises. Of the 1,500 or so pardoned people, the most significant are the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, two far-right groups who played a major role in the violence that ensued following President Joe Biden’s election in 2020. They are to be released from prison following the executive order. 

This is yet another example of Trump changing his viewpoints purely out of convenience–and perhaps even a blatant attempt to assert his power over the judiciary. To issue pardons on such a large scale diminishes its value, and is an abuse of the pardon power. 

Since Trump has taken office this past month, he’s already shaken things up in the federal government. However, not all of his executive orders have been approved and acted upon. As of today, the White House has responded to Trump’s executive order to freeze federal grants by rescinding the proposal. When proposing this order, he claimed that the freeze would not affect Medicaid, Social Security, food stamp programs and student loans or scholarships. 

When it comes to education, the effects would be detrimental. Cuts to federal funding would mean fewer resources for students, including textbooks, technology and free school lunches, and would also reduce school programs, such as arts, theatre, music and other extracurricular activities. With these factors in play, students’ opportunities and resources are in harm’s way, making it harder for students to further their education and plan for their future. This carries even greater significance for students who go to lower income schools, because they’re especially reliant on the federal government’s funding and this would make almost all their opportunities nonexistent. 

Another important executive order implemented Jan. 29 is “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schools,” which revolves around the specific issues in the U.S. education system that “erode critical thinking.” The “indoctrinations” Trump plans on ending regards things such as allowing students to get surgical or chemical changes regarding their gender without parental consent or involvement, and the implementation of critical race theory into classroom lessons. Trump’s reasoning for such ideas are his protection of laws and amendments such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), which give parents control over their students health records and allow them to be involved when making decisions about their mental and physical health. By implementing more control over students in schools, he is preventing many students from being able to freely express themselves and is taking away freedoms which students believe they should have.

Renaming American Landmarks: “Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness”

During his first day in office, Trump officially ordered the Secretary of the Interior to rename Denali and the Gulf of Mexico to Mt. McKinley and the Gulf of America respectively. Following the deluge of orders over the past week, surrounding everything from immigration to environmental policy, name changes first appear of minimal concern. However, it is important to emphasize the immense weight titles carry, recognizing who has power and where they assign value. Through this order, Trump makes one thing clear: a commitment to a dominant America.

However, this appeal to patriotism and tradition comes at the cost of honoring international unity and traditions which predate our founding, as Alaska State Senator Lisa Murkowski emphasized in her condemnation of the Denali name change. 

“Our nation’s tallest mountain, which has been called Denali for thousands of years, must continue to be known by the rightful name bestowed by Alaska’s Koyukon Athabascans, who have stewarded the land since time immemorial,” said Murkowski.

Moving south, it is important to note that the name change of the Gulf of Mexico will not be recognized abroad. This order makes no substantive change, acting as a political tool to place the US above all else and appealing to easily abused nationalistic tendencies. Through this action, Trump only emphasizes the immense power of the presidency, sending a clear message of U.S. dominance at the cost of delegitimizing others’ history and tradition, ideals he is purported to hold dear.

Final Thoughts

In an earlier editorial, we predicted that Trump’s election would rock the foundations upon which our country is built. In the past week and a half, we have been proven correct, and as Trump’s term unfolds, there is no doubt that the president will continue to bring drastic changes to the United States. Trump’s actions are an indicator of egoism and an overinflated sense of his own power, but he is not our king. Our only hope is that citizens and authorities alike will band together and prevent him from destroying the rights and values we hold dear.

The post As Future Journalists of America, We Are Scared appeared first on Obsidian News | Oregon Youth Voices.