recognizing

Four of America’s nominally closest allies — Britain, Australia, France and Canada — disgraced themselves this week by recognizing a so-called Palestinian state. In so doing, these nations didn’t merely betray their Western civilizational inheritance. They also rewarded terrorism, strengthened the genocidal ambitions of the global jihad and sent a chilling message: The path to international legitimacy runs not through the difficult work of building up a nation-state and engaging in diplomacy, but through mass murder, the weaponization of transnational institutions and the erasure of historical truth.

The Trump administration has already denounced this craven capitulation by our allies. There should be no recognition of an independent Palestinian state at this moment in history. Such a recognition is an abdication not only of basic human decency, but also of national interest and strategic sanity.

The global march toward recognition of an independent Palestinian state ignores decades of brutal facts on the ground as well as the specific tide of blood behind this latest surge. It was less than two years ago — Oct. 7, 2023 — that Hamas launched the most barbaric anti-Jewish pogrom since the Holocaust: 6,000 terrorists poured into Israel, massacring roughly 1,200 innocent people in acts of unconscionable depravity — systematic rape, torture, kidnapping of babies. The terrorists livestreamed their own atrocities and dragged more than 250 hostages back to Gaza’s sprawling subterranean terror dungeons, where dozens remain to this day.

Many gullible liberal elites wish to believe that the radical jihadists of Hamas do not represent the broader Palestinian-Arab population, but that is a lie. Polls consistently show — and anecdotal videos of large street crowds consistently demonstrate — that Hamas and like-minded jihadist groups maintain overwhelming popularity in both Gaza and Judea and Samaria (what the international community refers to as the West Bank). These groups deserve shame, scorn and diplomatic rebuke — not fawning sympathy and United Nations red carpets.

The “government” in Gaza is a theocratic, Iranian-backed terror entity whose founding charter drips with unrepentant Jew-hatred and whose leaders routinely celebrate the wanton slaughter of innocent Israelis as triumphs of “resistance.” Along with the kleptocratic Palestinian Authority dictatorship in Ramallah, this is who, and what, Group of 7 powers like Britain and France have decided to reward with an imprimatur of legitimate statehood.

There is no meaningful “peace partner,” and no “two-state” vision to be realized, amid this horrible reality. There is only a sick cult of violence, lavishly funded from Tehran and eager for widespread international recognition as a stepping stone toward the destruction of Israel — and the broader West for which Israel is a proxy.

For decades, Western leaders maintained a straightforward position: There can be no recognition of a Palestinian state outside of direct negotiations with Israel, full demilitarization and the unqualified acceptance of Israel’s right to exist in secure borders as a distinctly Jewish state. The move at the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state torches that policy, declaring to the world that savagery and maximalist rejectionism are the currency of international legitimacy. By rewarding unilateralism and eschewing direct negotiation, these reckless Western governments have proved us international law skeptics right: The much-ballyhooed “peace process” agreements, such as the Oslo Accords of the 1990s, are not worth the paper they were written on.

In the wake of Oct. 7, these nations condemned the massacre, proclaimed solidarity with Israel and even briefly suspended funding for UNRWA, the U.N. aid group for the Palestinian territories, after agency employees were accused of participating in the attack. Yet, under the relentless drumbeat of anti-Israel activism and diplomatic cowardice, they have now chosen to rehabilitate the Palestinian-Arab nationalist cause — not after the leaders of the cause renounced terrorism, but while its most gruesome crimes remained unpunished, its hostages still languish in concentration camp-like squalor and its leaders still clamor for the annihilation of Israel.

Trump should clarify not only that America will not join in this dangerous, high-stakes charade, but also that there could very well be negative trade or diplomatic repercussions for countries that recognize an independent Palestinian terror state. The reason for such consequences would be simple: Undermining America’s strongest ally in the Middle East while simultaneously creating yet another new terror-friendly Islamist state directly harms the American national interest. There is no American national interest — none, zero — in the creation of a new Palestinian state in the heart of the Holy Land. On the contrary, as the Abraham Accords peace deals of 2020 proved, there is plenty of reason to embolden Israel. Contra liberal elites, it is this bolstering of Israel that fosters genuine regional peace.

The world must know: In the face of evil, America does not flinch, does not equivocate and does not reward those who murder our friends and threaten the Judeo-Christian West. As long as the Jewish state stands on the front lines of civilization, the United States must remain at its side, unwavering, unbowed and unashamed. Basic human decency and the American national interest both require nothing less.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer

Information, in the second Trump administration, is a currency of power and fear. Last week, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced sweeping subpoenas targeting physicians and medical providers who offer care for transgender youth. The aim is not to initiate prosecutions: Indeed, the legal theories upon which such prosecutions might rest are tenuous at best.

By filing these investigative demands, the government plainly hopes to chill medical providers from offering expert care. This strategy can work even if, at the end of the day, the government’s threats are hollow as a matter of law. The White House’s plainly unconstitutional attacks on law firms, for example, have substantially worked — even though the minority of firms to challenge the orders rapidly won relief.

Fortunately, the legal system is not powerless in the face of such overreaching: Federal district courts have the authority, and the obligation, to recognize that patient-physician dealings are akin to attorney-client and spousal discussions. Both of the latter benefit from judicially created privileges — or legal shields that individuals can invoke against the state’s probing. At a moment when not just gender medicine but also reproductive care more generally is in peril, federal courts can and should step in and shield intimately private medical data as well.

We suspect that many people believe that what they tell their doctors is already private. They’re right, but only sort of. There’s a federal law called HIPAA that limits what your doctor can do with the information. It says that your doctor can’t, for instance, sell your medical records to the newspaper. In 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services also issued a HIPAA “privacy rule” that heightened protections for reproductive healthcare information. (Last month, a federal district court in Texas declared the rule unconstitutional — so its future is uncertain.)

Even with the privacy rule, however, HIPAA hides a gaping hole: It allows disclosures “required by law.” And the law explicitly permits disclosures pursuant to subpoenas of all kinds — judicial, grand jury or administrative — including those issued by Bondi. So if the Justice Department subpoenas your intimate and sensitive healthcare information, HIPAA won’t stop that.

In previous academic work, we’ve urged Congress and state legislatures to fill this gap. Blue states have acted to curtail cooperation with other states — but there’s a limit to what states can do when the federal government demands information.

Yet there remains one entity that can, and should, act immediately to shield reproductive healthcare information: the same federal district courts that have been at the forefront of pushing back on the Trump administration’s many illegal and constitutional actions. We think federal courts should extend existing “privileges,” as evidentiary shields are called, to encompass both records of gender-affirming and transgender medical care, and also records of reproductive care more generally.

A privilege not only bars protected information from being admitted into evidence at trial, but also blocks subpoenas, warrants and other court orders.

Federal district courts have a general power to create privileges, and they often do so when people already have a reasonable expectation that their conversations will not be disclosed. Most people have heard of the attorney-client privilege, which means that you can confide in your lawyer without worrying that what you say will end up being used in court. But privileges can apply to all sorts of other information as well: what you tell your spouse, what you tell your spiritual advisor and even highway safety data that your state reports to the feds in exchange for funding. Existing court-created privileges protect not only attorney-client but also executive-branch communications.

Federal courts should recognize a privilege for doctor-patient communications in gender and reproductive medicine. They could do so if one of the physicians subpoenaed recently goes to court. The protection they seek is simply an extension of widely recognized legal principles and expectations of privacy. Federal courts already have recognized a privilege for patient communications with psychotherapists, and many state courts also offer privilege protections for broader doctor-patient communications.

Importantly, it is the job of federal district courts to craft evidence-related rules. After all, these are the judges who are closest to litigants and the mechanics of evidence protection. District courts don’t need to wait around for the Supreme Court to act on this, because the Federal Rules of Evidence left privileges to common law development in the district courts. And under the well-established balancing test that lower federal courts should follow when they create new privileges, we think our proposed privilege is an easy case: It serves a public purpose and protects what should be recognized as a valued interest of “transcendent importance” — privacy for our most intimate medical care.

The case for recognizing the privilege in respect to the recent subpoenas is especially strong: The attorney general is seeking to chill physicians from providing advice that is protected by the 1st Amendment and care that is guaranteed by federal statutes. Such subpoenas are directly at odds with the rule of law.

Today, it is trans kids; tomorrow, it will be people seeking an abortion or contraception. We should not have to wait for the federal government to go this far before our privacy gets the shield that it deserves.

Aziz Huq and Rebecca Wexler are professors of law at the University of Chicago Law School and Columbia Law School, respectively.

Waste has been a critical problem in Indonesia. Reportedly, 40.16% of the 33.7 million tons of waste generated in 2024 was unmanaged. This statistic has forced the country to renew its 100% waste management target from 2025 to 2029. Besides, 48% of Indonesian households burn their waste despite the legal prohibition of such activity, causing air pollution and respiratory diseases. Amidst the shortcomings in Indonesia’s waste management system, the contribution of its informal waste pickers is inevitable.

The informal sector collects around 1 million tons of plastic waste, which mostly ends up at recycling facilities. In Jakarta alone, informal waste pickers have estimatedly reduced the waste volume by 30%, not only reducing the recycling costs for municipalities but also helping to extend the lifespan of dumps and sanitary landfills. As waste accounts for roughly 10% of Indonesia’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2021, the informal waste pickers’ work in diverting recyclables also contributes to combating climate change.

The Overlooked Workforce

Despite their central role in waste management, the well-being of informal waste pickers is far from ideal. Its precarious nature remains a major issue. Waste pickers in Bekasi and Depok earn only about one-third of the government’s minimum wage in both locations. In the Bantar Gebang landfill in Bekasi, the income per person not only fell below the legal minimum wage but was also lower than that of occupations in both the formal and informal sectors.

The informal waste pickers also work in horrible conditions. They often directly make contact with medical waste and other sharp waste. Leachate that contaminated the groundwater was also one of the most dangerous environmental problems at the site. Furthermore, many informal waste pickers do not have access to free health services, forcing them to rely on paid services or ignore their health problems.

To add insult to injury, the work of informal waste collection remains highly stigmatized due to its association with waste. Informal waste pickers in Surabaya cope with their low social status by changing clothes before they go home and emphasizing that waste-picking is at least a halal job, unlike stealing or other immoral occupations. Consequently, the combination of their precarious working conditions, low income, and social stigma often heightens their risk of psychological health issues, including depression.

Despite their roles in creating more livable cities, the regulation that includes informal waste pickers is nearly nonexistent. From the first law regulating waste management (Law No. 18/2008) to Presidential Regulation on National Waste Management Policy and Strategy (No. 83/2018) and Ministerial Regulation on Waste Reduction Roadmap by Producers (No. 75/2019), none of them explicitly recognize informal waste pickers. The regulations leave them outside of the system.

The poor condition of Indonesian informal waste pickers also stems from the intergenerational poverty cycle. These workers are trapped in debt and poverty due to the lack of access to employment, education, sanitation, water, healthcare, welfare schemes, and housing. Their low income as waste pickers and the lack of government protection prevent them from breaking the cycle.

The lack of institutional support, like cooperatives and unions, also hinders Indonesian informal waste pickers from leveraging their well-being. Albeit organizations like Pemulung Berdaya Cooperative and Indonesian Scavengers Association exist, they have not yet represented the majority of Indonesian informal waste pickers, especially in urban cities outside of Jakarta and its satellite areas.

Making the Invisible, Indispensable

Indonesia’s informal waste pickers might be invisible in policy, but they are surely indispensable in practice. Thus, the government needs to recognize these “invisible heroes” by acknowledging them as essential workers. Consider how Brazil’s national waste policy puts informal waste pickers as valuable actors in the waste management system. The law mandates the catadores (Brazilian informal waste pickers) to share responsibility in reducing the volume of solid waste.

Take the case of Belo Horizonte, a large city in Brazil, which developed an integrated system of solid waste management, including the catadores, into a formalized relationship with the wider recycling ecosystem. This might be one of the reasons why informal waste pickers in Belo Horizonte have a higher perceived social status compared to those in Surabaya, according to a study by Colombijn and Morbidini.

Integrating the informal waste pickers into the system may increase recycling rates while reducing child labor and providing benefits such as healthcare, education, and social recognition. The city of Accra, Ghana, formalized partnerships with informal waste pickers by providing them with access to finance, equipment, health insurance, and motorcycle licenses.

Just as crucial is creating and supporting cooperatives to give economic agency to informal waste pickers. Learning from the Solid Waste Collection and Handling (SWaCH) Cooperative in India, the presence of institutional support not only provides gloves, masks, footwear, jackets, carts, and implements for its members. Beyond this, cooperatives act as intermediaries and leverage the bargaining power of informal waste pickers. In Pune, every registered waste picker has the right to health insurance, thanks to the advocacy work of the cooperative.

The same inclusive principle must also extend to Indonesia’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system. Despite the formal regulation through the Ministerial Regulation (No. 75/2019), informal waste pickers are once again overlooked. Excluding informal waste pickers from the EPR system is neither practical nor just, according to the Consumer Goods Forum’s Coalition of Action on Plastic Waste. Instead, EPR financing may target waste pickers’ cooperatives or other inclusive initiatives. The Producer Responsibility Organization can provide technical support to improve informal waste pickers’ rights and working conditions. Most importantly, the informal waste pickers themselves must be included in the discussion of EPR policy formulation.

The stakes are clear: promoting a better waste management system is not merely about the technology and infrastructure, but also justice and inclusion. Considering the environmental and economic benefits they have contributed to society at large, informal waste pickers should not remain the “invisible heroes.” They have kept our cities clean; they too have the right to a better living standard and recognition.