On Thursday evening, the President of the United States gave an address on national television to promote his longstanding lie that the 2020 election was stolen. I listened to his speech expecting to come out of it with a swelling rage—and I certainly should have. However, all I could muster for myself was a bitter apathy. As an American citizen, this indifference disturbs me; as a Catholic, it mortifies me. The amount of lies the President managed to cram into 30 minutes is impressive, much to the chagrin of fact-checkers who probably had to watch the address on 0.25x speed just to get every fabricated claim down. His segue into the main topic of election security was predicated on the claim that Americans need to trust their government, which is an interesting way to reintroduce a conspiracy theory that undermines faith in the state. For a decade, Trump’s apologists have bemoaned that people who disrespect him are disrespecting the office of the Presidency. Yet, his address was a perfect illustration of him cheapening his own office by using it to cope with losing an election six years ago. Respecting the office means disapproving of those who lower it; you cannot simultaneously respect the Presidency and respect this President. Tragically, someone as debased as Donald Trump has the power to drag more than his own office down with him. He delegitimized the CIA and the FBI by committing them to his claims about the 2020 election. And, by claiming that election integrity today is still just as bad as it supposedly was in 2020 (logic that would make his own re-election in 2024 questionable as well, but that was conveniently unaddressed), he called into question the security of the upcoming midterm elections, undermining the legitimacy of Congress. In half an hour, he delegitimized the legislative and the executive branches as representatives of the public. My grievances likely read as familiar because you have been hearing and reading grievances like it for the six long years the President has stretched out this particular lie. Wouldn’t that explain my apathy? A six-year lie ought to be desensitizing. However, at the same time, six years of lying means six years of damage, including loss of life. Ashli Babbitt may be a MAGA martyr, but make no mistake: her death was not the result of “dirty cops.” She would not have been in her particularly lethal situation had she not been told by her President that her country was undergoing a tyrannical takeover. She is dead because of Donald Trump and his lethal lie. An old lie is more outrageous than a new one because the latter can be nipped in the bud before it goes too far. An old lie has already reaped immeasurable damage and its continuity furthers the harm. It has informed people to make decisions that get them into fights with their family, into estrangements with their friends, and below the ground. If the longevity of these claims is the explanation for my apathy, it is a poor excuse. Why should I need an excuse for my apathy? Is it not a good thing that, after being baited into outrage for six years, my emotions are unaffected by the lies of a small, pathetic individual? This would be wonderful if I were a Nietzschean striving to become the overman. But I am a Catholic who believes that principles have a purpose. I am a Catholic who, when faced with the question “what is truth?” (John 18:38), knows that facts are not subjective. I know that the truth, like God, is mighty and immovable because Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh (John 1:14), and the Word is true. Thus, attacks on the truth are attacks on my savior. I should take that personally. When I am apathetic in the face of a lie, I cast aside the importance of truth. When that lie is also unpatriotic and lethal, I renounce my country and I cast aside the sanctity of life. By being more like the overman than a disciple of Christ, I inch closer to giving up my faith and succumbing to despair. Anger seeking justice is not a sin (CCC 2302), despair is (CCC 2091). Thus, my apathy disturbs me. The President’s address in which he repeated old grievances will have likely faded into irrelevancy by the time this article has been posted. Rather than let yourself be desensitized, like I have been myself, reflect on how upsetting it is that this speech is within our bounds of normality. Hold tight to any anger that reflection may produce, and turn that anger into a vote and a voice before you turn it into misery.
By Jack Jurjans
In January 2025, President Trump released a press notice titled “Granting Pardons and Commutation of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at or Near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021” by which he pardoned a vast majority of the arrested members of the January 6th riot attempted to interrupt vote counting related to Biden’s election. On July 6th, a significant change was made to this verdict, demonstrating moral security within the United States’ justice system. A judge ruled against the pardon of a particular suspect. Brian J. Cole Jr.’s pardon was denied by U.S. district judge Amar Al, placing a limit on Trump’s pardoning of certain suspects. Brian had been arrested for placing two pipe bombs next to the Republican and Democrat national committees long after the pardons took place. The bombs did not detonate before they were found by law enforcement, so they were later used to search for a suspect. Defense lawyers argued the ruling by saying Trump’s clemency was granted to bar suspects from being imprisoned for cases like these, despite much of the MAGA platform justifying them alongside January 6th altogether. But the real reason for this ruling in its prevention of corruption stands firm. The court held that Cole was using false interpretation including himself in the pardoned rioters, because the actual language of the document states that those who were convicted at the time are pardoned. Cole was not convicted until later on in the investigation. Trump’s actions during his reign as president have long made people recognize personality flaws like tyrannical levels of confidence. However, amongst all of the fear in the media surrounding Trump’s presidency, court rulings represent how our country is built to prevent power abuse. The concept of judicial review is exercised in this ruling and demonstrates what all Americans should know about the justice system. Judges are there not to make decisions on our futures, but to apply the law appropriately. Still, does this mean Trump’s power is always checked properly? Obviously not. We have corruption in our system, which has been demonstrated to us by the rich billionaires who evade taxes by investing their money into private wealth. Our country has a long way to go in reshaping the law and adding more guardrails. Ultimately though, we can currently sit comfortably knowing no ‘king’ will be completely overhauling the law without some serious breakdowns.
By Megan Fincher
A Canadian same-sex couple is suing an Ontario surrogate after carrying their son to term. Once doctors detected a possible heart defect and cleft lip, the couple demanded that she abort the child. The relationship between the surrogate and the couple started off well, but rapidly declined in June 2024, when she refused requests to terminate the pregnancy when a 22 week ultrasound revealed minor health defects. She received a missive from the couple that left her devastated, reading: “Considering that medical tests indicate that the fetus has, or is likely to have, a genetic, chromosomal or other abnormality or defect, and in accordance with article 8.5 (a) of our surrogacy agreement … we want to inform you of our wish that the pregnancy be terminated.” The surrogate stated she would have agreed to an abortion had the child’s likelihood of survival been minimal. However, the surrogate explained she would not abort the fetus for what she considered to be largely cosmetic reasons. After the abortion was refused, the parents agreed to proceed with the pregnancy, with doctors at Mount Sinai Hospital saying the baby was generally healthy and had no major problems beyond the cleft lip. However, tensions continued to escalate when the surrogate insisted on a home birth performed by midwives instead of going to a hospital, as the parents requested. During delivery, the baby had breathing difficulties, but recovered after being given oxygen and taken to the hospital in an ambulance after the birth. After receiving treatment, the baby was taken by the parents, who ceased contact with the mother. She later asked the couple to reimburse her $10,000 in outstanding expenses, lost wages, transportation costs, and skipped contributions to her pension plan. Canadian surrogates are only reimbursed for expenses incurred in bringing the pregnancy to term, unlike in America, where mothers can exceed $100,000 in payment. However, the couple ignored her, leading her to take them to small-claims court, where she discovered that the contract required arbitration to settle such disputes, limiting that route. Then, she was hit with her own lawsuit. According to the suit filed in Ontario Superior Court in May, the couple claimed that the surrogate did not “adequately keep them informed about the baby’s health, put the child at risk, violated confidentiality and caused them emotional distress,” and sought damages on those grounds. The couple is reportedly seeking around $600,000 from the mother, who has responded by saying: “You know I’m a single mom, you know I have a daughter, and you’re basically suing me for my house. It seems very s—ty, it’s just awful … I just feel used … They didn’t get the perfect child they wanted and they threw me away.” The situation has gone viral and sparked controversy online, as some are calling for the couple to lose custody immediately and should not receive a dime from the mother. Others question whether it is in the best interest of the child to be raised in that environment and how it will affect him when he later learns that his own parents did not actually want him.
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Follow Us