WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own making this week as they decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from nations across the globe.
At issue are import taxes that are paid by American businesses and consumers.
Small-business owners had sued, including a maker of “learning toys” in Illinois and a New York importer of wines and spirits. They said Trump’s ever-changing tariffs had severely disrupted their businesses, and they won rulings declaring the president had exceeded his authority.
On Wednesday, the justices will hear their first major challenge to Trump’s claims of unilateral executive power. And the outcome is likely to turn on three doctrines that have been championed by the court’s conservatives.
First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. Its opening words say: “All legislative powers … shall be vested” in Congress, and the elected representatives “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes and excises.”
Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words. They call this “textualism,” which rejects a more liberal and open-ended approach that included the general purpose of the law.
That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block … or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.
Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
In the past, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of Iran, Syria and North Korea or groups of terrorists. It does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” and it had not been used for tariffs prior to this year.
He and the five other conservatives said they were skeptical of far-reaching and costly regulations issued by the Obama and Biden administrations involving matters such as climate change, student loan forgiveness or mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for 84 million Americans.
And unless there is a “clear congressional authorization,” Roberts said the court will not uphold assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy.”
Now all three doctrines are before the justices, since the lower courts relied on them in ruling against Trump.
No one disputes that the president could impose sweeping worldwide tariffs if he had sought and won approval from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, he insisted the power was his alone.
In a social media post, Trump called the case on tariffs “one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the ‘Majors.’ In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President.”
Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, his top courtroom attorney, argues that tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. And if so, the court should defer to the president.
“IEEPA authorizes the imposition of regulatory tariffs on foreign imports to deal with foreign threats — which crucially differ from domestic taxation,” he wrote last month.
For the same reason, “the major questions doctrine … does not apply here,” he said. It is limited to domestic matters, not foreign affairs, he argued.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has sounded the same note in the past.
Sauer will also seek to persuade the court that the word “regulate” imports includes imposing tariffs.
The challengers are supported by prominent conservatives, including Stanford law professor Michael McConnell.
In 2001, he and John Roberts were nominated for a federal appeals court at the same time by President George W. Bush, and he later served with now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
He is the lead counsel for one group of small-business owners.
“This case is what the American Revolution was all about. A tax wasn’t legitimate unless it was imposed by the people’s representatives,” McConnell said. “The president has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without Congress.”
His brief argues that Trump is claiming a power unlike any in American history.
“Until the 1900s, Congress exercised its tariff power directly, and every delegation since has been explicit and strictly limited,” he wrote in Trump vs. V.O.S. Selections. “Here, the government contends that the President may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants — simply by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national ‘emergency’ and an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’ declarations the government tells us are unreviewable. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that.”
He said the “major questions” doctrine fully applies here.
Two years ago, he noted the court called Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness “staggering by any measure” because it could cost more than $430 billion. By comparison, he said, the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s tariffs will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035.
The case figures to be a major test of whether the Roberts court will put any legal limits on Trump’s powers as president.
But the outcome will not be the final word on tariffs. Administration officials have said that if they lose, they will seek to impose them under other federal laws that involve national security.
Still pending before the court is an emergency appeal testing the president’s power to send National Guard troops to American cities over the objection of the governor and local officials.
Last week, the court asked for further briefs on the Militia Act of 1908, which says the president may call up the National Guard if he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”
The government had assumed the regular forces were the police and federal agents, but a law professor said the regular forces in the original law referred to the military.
The justices asked for a clarification from both sides by Nov. 17.
At the center of the sprawling legal battle over President Trump’s domestic military deployments is a single word: rebellion.
To justify sending the National Guard to Los Angeles and other cities over the outcry of local leaders, the Trump administration has cited an obscure and little-used law empowering presidents to federalize soldiers to “suppress” a rebellion, or the threat of one.
But the statute does not define the word on which it turns. That’s where Bryan A. Garner comes in.
For decades, Garner has defined the words that make up the law. The landmark legal reference book he edits, Black’s Law Dictionary, is as much a fixture of American courts as black robes, rosewood gavels and brass scales of justice.
The dictionary is Garner’s magnum opus, as essential to attorneys as Gray’s Anatomy is to physicians.
Now, Black’s definition of rebellion is at the center of two critical pending decisions in cases from Portland, Ore., and Chicago — one currently being reheard by the 9th Circuit and the other on the emergency docket at the Supreme Court — that could unleash a flood of armed soldiers into American streets.
That a dictionary could influence a court case at all owes in part to Garner’s seminal book on textualism, a conserative legal doctrine that dictates a page-bound interpretation of the law. His co-author was Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice whose strict originalist readings of the Constitution paved the way for the court’s recent reversal of precedents on abortion, voting rights and gun laws.
On a recent weekday, the country’s leading legal lexicographer was ensconced among the 4,500 some-odd dictionaries that fill his Dallas home, revising the entry for the adjective “calculated” ahead of Black’s 13th Edition.
But, despite his best efforts not to dwell on the stakes of his work, the noun “rebellion” was never far from his mind.
Federal authorities stand guard at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Ore., that has been the site of protests against the Trump administration.
(Sean Bascom / Anadolu via Getty Images)
“One of the very first cases citing my book sent a man to his capital punishment,” he explained of an earlier dictionary. “They cited me, the guy was put to death. I was very disturbed by that at first.”
He managed his distress by doubling down on his craft. In its first 100 years, Black’s Law Dictionary was revised and reissued six times. From 1999 to 2024, Garner produced six new editions.
“I work on it virtually every day,” he said.
Most mornings, he rises before dawn, settling behind a desk in one of his three home libraries around 4 a.m. to begin the day’s defining.
That fastidiousness has not stopped the lexical war over his work in recent months, as judges across the country read opposite meanings into “rebellion.”
The Department of Justice and the attorneys general of California, Oregon and Illinois have likewise sparred over the word.
In making their case, virtually all have invoked Black’s definition — one Garner has personally penned for the last 30 years. He began editing the 124-year-old reference book in 1995.
“The word ‘rebellion’ has been stable in its three basic meanings in Black’s since I took over,” he said.
“Ooo! So at some point I added, ‘usually through violence,’” he amended himself.
This change comes from the definition’s first sense: 1. Open, organized, and armed resistance to an established government or ruler; esp., an organized attempt to change the government or leader of a country, usu. through violence.
States have touted this meaning to argue the word rebellion cannot possibly apply to torched Waymos in Los Angeles or naked bicyclists in Portland.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, has leaned on the second and third senses to say the opposite.
The California Department of Justice wrote in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Illinois case that federal authorities argue rebellion means any form of “resistance or opposition to authority or tradition,” including disobeying “a legal command or summons.”
“But it is not remotely plausible to think that Congress intended to adopt that expansive definition,” the state said.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth walks onstage to deliver remarks as part of the Marine Corps’ 250th anniversary celebration at Camp Pendleton on Oct. 18.
(Oliver Contreras / AFP via Getty Images)
Although the scope and the stakes of the rebellion fight make it unique, the debate over definitions is nothing new, experts say.
The use of legal dictionaries to solve judicial problems has surged in recent years, with the rise of Scalia-style textualism and the growing sense in certain segments of the public that judges simply make the law up as they go along.
By 2018, the Supreme Court was citing dictionary definitions in half of its opinions, up dramatically from prior years, according to Mark A. Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School.
Splitting hairs over what makes a rebellion is a new level of absurdity, he said. “This is an unfortunate consequence of the Supreme Court’s obsession with dictionaries.”
“Reducing the meaning of a statute to one (of the many) dictionary definitions is unlikely to give you a useful answer,” he said. “What it gives you is a means of manipulating the definition to achieve the result you want.”
Garner has publicly acknowledged the limits of his work. Ultimately, it’s up to judges to decide cases based on precedents, evidence, and the relevant law. Dictionaries are an adjunct.
Still, he and other textualists see the turn to dictionaries as an important corrective to interpretive excesses of the past.
“The words are law,” Garner said.
Law enforcement officers watch from a ledge of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility as a protester stands outside in an inflatable frog costume on Oct. 21 in Portland, Ore.
(Jenny Kane / Associated Press)
Judges who cite dictionaries are “not ceding power to lexicographers,” he argued, but simply giving appropriate heft to the text enacted by Congress.
Others call the dictionary a fig leaf for the interpretive excesses of jurists bent on reading the law to suit a political agenda.
“Judges don’t want to take personal responsibility for saying ‘Yes, there’s a rebellion’ or ‘no, there isn’t,’ so they say ‘the dictionary made me do it.’” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “No, it didn’t.”
Though he agreed with Black’s definition of rebellion, Segall rejected the idea it could shape jurisprudence: “That’s not how our legal system works,” he said.
The great challenge in the troops cases, legal scholars agree, is that they turn on a vague, century-old text with no relevant case law to help define it.
Unlike past presidents, who invoked the Insurrection Act to combat violent crises, Trump deployed an obscure subsection of the U.S. code to wrest command of National Guard troops from state governors and surge military forces into American cities.
Before Trump deployed troops to L.A. in June, the law had been used only once in its 103-year history.
With little interpretation to oppose it, the Justice Department has wielded its novel reading of the statute to justify the use of federalized troops to support immigration arrests and put down demonstrations.
Administration attorneys say the president’s decision to send soldiers to Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago is “unreviewable” by courts, and that troops can remain in federal service in perpetuity once called up, regardless of how conditions change.
Border Patrol official Greg Bovino marches with federal agents to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles on Aug. 14.
(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)
Judges have so far rejected these claims. But they have split on the thornier issues of whether community efforts to disrupt immigration enforcement leave Trump “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws” — another trigger for the statute — and if sporadic violence at protests adds up to rebellion.
As of this week, appellate courts also remain sharply divided on the evidence.
On Oct 23, Oregon claimed the Department of Justice inflated the number of federal protective personnel it said were detailed to Portland in response to protests to more than triple its actual size — a mistake the department called an “unintended ambiguity.”
The inflated number was repeatedly cited in oral arguments before the 9th Circuit and more than a dozen times in the court’s Oct. 20 decision allowing the federalization of Oregon’s troops — an order the court reversed Tuesday while it is reviewed.
The 7th Circuit noted similar falsehoods, leading that court to block the Chicago deployment.
“The [U.S. District] court found that all three of the federal government’s declarations from those with firsthand knowledge were unreliable to the extent they omitted material information or were undermined by independent, objective evidence,” the panel wrote in its Oct 11 decision.
A Supreme Court decision expected in that case will probably define Trump’s power to deploy troops throughout the Midwest — and potentially across the country.
For Garner, that decision means more work.
In addition to his dictionaries, he is also the author of numerous other works, including a memoir about his friendship with Scalia. In his spare time, he travels the country teaching legal writing.
The editor credits his prodigious output to strict discipline. As an undergrad at the University of Texas, he swore off weekly Longhorns games and eschewed his beloved Dallas Cowboys to concentrate on writing, a practice he has maintained with Calvinist devotion ever since.
“I haven’t seen a game for the last 46 years,” the lexicographer said, though he makes a biannual exception for the second halves of the Super Bowl and college football’s national championship game.
As for the political football with Black’s “rebellion,” he’s waiting to see how the Illinois Guard case plays out.
“I will be looking very closely at what the Supreme Court says,” Garner said. “If it writes anything about the meaning of the word rebellion, that might well affect the next edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.”
Generation Alpha’s perhaps meaningless slang term “6-7” has been declared word of the year for 2025 by Dictionary.com. Photo by Adam Schrader
Oct. 29 (UPI) — Generation Alpha’s perhaps meaningless slang term “6-7” has been declared word of the year for 2025 by Dictionary.com, beating out words including “aura farming,” “broligarchy,” “tradwife” and the dynamite emoji.
“Each year, Dictionary.com’s Word of the Year and short-listed nominees capture pivotal moments in language and culture,” Dictionary.com said in a news release Wednesday.
“These words serve as a linguistic time capsule, reflecting social trends and global events that defined the year.”
The reference site said that, in determining the word of year, its lexicographers analyzed data including news headlines, social media trends and search engine results. Still, even Dictionary.com said it isn’t sure what it means.
“And now for the moment adults around the world have been waiting for: What does 67 mean? Well…it’s complicated,” the lexicographers said.
The term 6-7 is believed to have originated from rapper Skrilla’s song “Doot Doot (6-7),” which was released last December and was quickly used as a sound by TikTok creators making compilation videos of LaMelo Ball of the Charlotte Hornets. It quickly spread.
“Within weeks, teachers were trading tips online about how to get their students to stop saying 6-7 all day long,” Dictionary.com said.
Some say that it’s meant as an ambivalent response, like “maybe-this, maybe that.” But more often than not, Generation Alpha seems to just use it as a response to any question.
“Perhaps the most defining feature of 67 is that it’s impossible to define. It’s meaningless, ubiquitous, and nonsensical. In other words, it has all the hallmarks of brainrot,” Dictionary.com said.
“It’s the logical endpoint of being perpetually online, scrolling endlessly, consuming content fed to users by algorithms trained by other algorithms.”
When Gigi Perez took to the stage at the Austin City Limits Festival earlier this month, it felt like the universe was holding up a mirror, reflecting back all the growth she’d done in the four years since her last performance there.
Back in 2021, the Cuban American singer-songwriter had a newly-minted record deal and a handful of viral SoundCloud singles — the wistful acoustic guitar track “Sometimes (Backwood)” and the devastatingly raw “Celene.” The 2021 edition of ACL was the first festival she ever performed, and though her early afternoon slot at one of the smaller stages attracted a few dozen audience members, Perez had spent so many years dreaming of the opportunity that it didn’t matter. She was happy just to be there.
This month, Perez returned to Austin no longer an emerging artist, but as a rising star. Her mega-viral single, the lovesick folk ballad from 2024, “Sailor Song,” had topped the U.K. singles chart and earned more than 1 billion streams on Spotify. On the back of its success, she spent the first half of this year opening for Hozier in support of her 2025 debut LP, “At the Beach, in Every Life.”
So when she took the stage at ACL in October, this time it was for a coveted golden hour set, with a sea of people stretched out before her — and a chorus of voices singing along to her every word.
“It was magical,” Perez told De Los. “There were people there who were actually at my first set in 2021, standing in the front. It meant a lot to me. I think that there’s a shock that I still experience with people coming to my set at a festival.”
At 25 years old, Perez has lived more life than most. Born in New Jersey and raised in West Palm Beach, Fla., the singer grew up in a devoutly Christian Cuban household, the middle child of three sisters.
As a teenager, the religious values she’d been steeped in were beginning to clash with her own realizations about her sexuality — and music provided a lifeline. The queer artists she listened to, like Hayley Kiyoko and Troye Sivan, tapped into feelings she hadn’t been able to articulate, and inspired her to write music that would allow her to express them in her own words.
At 18, just as she was preparing to head to the Berklee College of Music in Boston, her grandmother and uncle passed away, just weeks apart from each other. These dual losses set off a wave of grief and sparked difficult questions about her faith. She was struggling to regain her footing over the next year when, just months into the pandemic, her family experienced the sudden loss of her older sister Celene.
Perez felt unmoored. Her whole life, Celene had been a north star, a guiding light who inspired her to take up music, and who wanted to be a singer herself. Perez did what she knew how: wove her pain and anger and devastation into music, writing the soul-stirring tribute, “Celene.”
“The other day, I thought of something funny, but no one would’ve laughed but you,” she sings. “And mom and dad are always crying. And I wish I knew what to do.”
(Cat Cardenas / For De Los)
Her first original songs gained traction on TikTok, getting the attention of Interscope Records. From there, her career began to take off. She opened for Coldplay and Noah Cyrus, releasing her first EP, “How to Catch a Falling Knife,” in April 2023. Then, just months into a string of performances scheduled in London that summer, the label released her from her contract.
“I remember just being dumbfounded,” she said. “It was this immediate, very deep sense of fear and failure.”
But the funny thing about grief — that all-consuming force that had dragged her out to sea multiple times over the last several years — was that as suffocating as it could be, it was also surprising and unpredictable. So despite the depth of complicated emotions washing over her, Perez was acutely aware that this news was nothing compared to the loss of her sister. “So many things that happen in my life don’t affect me in that same profound way,” she said. “That was one of the things that made me. I don’t know, it’s hard to find the words even now.”
Growing up, Celene had her sights set on Broadway. She introduced Gigi to several musicals, from a bootleg version of “Legally Blonde,” to her first live theater experience in “Wicked,” to the cast album of Lin–Manuel Miranda’s “In the Heights.” They played one song from the soundtrack, “Breathe,” on repeat. It’s sung by the character Nina, the daughter of immigrants in Washington Heights, who returns home in shame after having to drop out of Stanford University.
“That’s how I was feeling at the time,” Perez professed.
In London, she listened to the song on repeat. Then, she started writing. From the beginning, her style has always been instinctual; a freeform jam session where she sits at the piano or with her guitar and just lets her ideas flow out. The title came to her first — “At the Beach, in Every Life” — and the song poured out of her, nearly word for word.
“I remember the first time I played those chords on the piano, I had no idea what was going to happen,” she said. “I just knew something was opening up inside me, but I had no idea how deep the well was going to be, or that I was going to be an artist who gets to travel the world. I just had these desires, these visions, but to really live it is something else.”
After finishing out her commitments in the U.K., she moved back home to Florida. From her childhood bedroom, she began to rebuild. She taught herself music production and kept writing more songs. Without intending to, the puzzle pieces of the last few years of her life began to fall into place, and the grief that had consumed so much of her story finally had an outlet.
“At the Beach, In Every Life” details a breaking down of Perez’s walls. Her sadness and regret washes over tracks like “Sugar Water” and “Crown,” building into fiery passion on “Chemistry” and “Sailor Song,” before cresting into the haunting resolution of the title track that closes it out. It’s a portrait of loss and yearning, made up of vivid recollections from her childhood, her family, and her previous relationships. In short, it’s the album she wishes she could’ve listened to five years ago when her pain seemed insurmountable.
“I had just been operating blind for so long,” she said. “Being able to share my experience of loss in this specific way, it’s something that my 20-year-old self would be in disbelief of. At the time, it was like being without air, the isolation was so suffocating.”
Not long ago, Perez’s sadness could sometimes make her self-conscious. She wanted to share what she was going through, but she also didn’t want to be defined by it. “I didn’t want to be that girl who was always talking about her sister, but there was this very genuine desire to cry out for help, or acknowledge her,” she said. “Everyone is different, but for me, I needed to acknowledge her in order to be well.”
Fans of Gigi Perez at the barricade during her performance at this year’s Austin City Limits Festival in Austin, Texas.
(Cat Cardenas / For De Los)
Now, not even five years later, it feels like she’s finally turned the page and started a new chapter. “I’ve been able to build a life around my grief, and honor the loss of my sister in a way that’s helped me,” she said. “I don’t know exactly what healing should look like, but her death affected me and continues to affect me in these very profound ways. This is the best case scenario for me, because I get to share it with others — that’s one of the things that makes it so difficult to navigate: the feeling that no one understands you.”
“Knowing that we’re not alone has really saved my life,” she said. “I used to be the person thinking, ‘What’s the point of being alive?’ But knowing there are other people with the same question, I know now that we can hold each other’s hands through that. That’s given me a purpose and that helps me continue to move through it.”
In the process of writing the album, Perez found ways to bring both of her sisters along for the ride. There are voice memos from Celene, along with a snippet of her singing on “Survivor’s Guilt.” But there’s also “Sugar Water,” a track she co-wrote with her younger sister, Bella, who joins her onstage to perform the song on tour. “Anyone who has two sisters knows the chaos and intensity that can bring,” she said. “But we loved each other, and we still do. My relationship to what it means to be a woman was shaped by having sisters, and Celene and Bella are the closest reflection that I have of myself.”
Amid this wild, almost unbelievable year, Perez has been grounded by her family’s presence. Her mom is part of her management team, and her dad has joined them on the road.
“There’s something to be said about being in it so much that it’s almost hard to physically feel it on the level you want to,” Perez said. But over the last few weeks, as she’s gotten the opportunity to revisit the places where she first found her footing as a performer, she’s had the opportunity to reflect on just how much she’s grown since then.
For now, she plans on heading back home to Florida once her tour is over to spend time reflecting on everything. “I think that’s when I’ll start to see the confetti fall,” she said. “Life is uncertain, and we never know what it’s going to throw our way, but this was a year that I prayed for. And I think it was a year that a lot of people who love me prayed for too. So for that, I’m very grateful.”
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE — President Trump said Saturday that he plans to hike tariffs on imports of Canadian goods by an extra 10% because of an anti-tariff television ad aired by the province of Ontario.
The ad used the words of former President Reagan to criticize U.S. tariffs, angering Trump, who said he would end trade talks with Canada. Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford said he would pull the ad after the weekend, and it ran Friday night during the first game of the World Series.
“Their Advertisement was to be taken down, IMMEDIATELY, but they let it run last night during the World Series, knowing that it was a FRAUD,” Trump said in a post on his social media platform as he flew aboard Air Force One to Malaysia.
“Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now.”
The ad used a recording of Reagan criticizing tariffs, though his comments were edited. He often criticized government policies — including protectionist measures such as tariffs — that interfered with free commerce and he spent much of that 1987 radio address spelling out the case against tariffs.
Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney will both attend the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Malaysia. But Trump told reporters traveling with him that he had no intention of meeting Carney there.
Bob. Mermaid. Code 300. Gate lice. These are all code words that flight attendants use to subtly discuss passengers when whizzing along at 30,000 feet. Knowing how to crack the code is key to working out what they’re talking about
Shelly Martin Peters has lifted the lid on her life as a flight attendant
Flight attendants have a subtle way of letting each other know if there is a hottie onboard.
When working the aisles at 30,000 feet, there isn’t much room for maneuvering a food trolley around or gossiping about which of the passengers has caught your eye. Which is why flight attendants use two code words to make it clear which way their heart is beating.
“If you hear them refer to someone as ‘Bob’, they are using the secret acronym ‘babe on board’. When you are disembarking from the aircraft, if the flight attendant says ‘cheerio’ to you this could also be code they have a secret crush!” a flight attendant, who asked to remain anonymous, told eShores.
“We always run back to the galley and let the rest of the crew know where the sexy passenger is sat. We will be extra nice to them and give them freebies. I can confirm phone numbers have definitely been written on napkins!”
Sherry Martin Peters, a veteran flight attendant and founder of Atlas + Wild AtlasAndWild.com, is keen for passengers to know that, behind the professional exterior, she and her colleagues lead intriguing and sometimes less glamorous than you might expect.
“I’ve been an international flight attendant for 26 years, and passengers only see the smiling, polished version of us—but there’s an entirely different reality behind that image,” she told the Mirror.
“We speak in acronyms because airline lingo becomes its own mother tongue. Trips aren’t described by days, but by city: ‘I’m flying Athens this month.’ Casually mentioning having lunch in New York, then breakfast in Paris is not bragging — it’s just Tuesday and it’s our normal. Confusing to outsiders, yes. You may start to understand it, and even speak our language to some extent if you are married to us, or are close friends.
“Our geography is fluid. Our bodies no longer belong to a single time zone. So we build rituals to feel grounded — even when we’re 35,000 feet above it.”
There are plenty of other codewords that flight attendants deploy when subtly chatting about passengers. They include:
Mermaid – A playful yet passive-aggressive nickname for a passenger who deliberately sprawls out across empty seats to deter others from sitting in their row.
Code 300 or Angel – These indicate that someone has died on board.
ABP – translates to ‘able-bodied passengers’. These are individuals that the crew seek out just in case of an emergency.
Gate Lice – This term refers to passengers, often inexperienced flyers, who crowd around or line up at a gate at an airport, completely blocking the boarding area and preventing First and Business Class passengers from getting on the plane when they’re allowed to.
1. The Impossible Fortune by Richard Osman (Pamela Dorman Books: $30) Members of the Thursday Murder Club plunge back into action after a wedding guest disappears.
2. What We Can Know by Ian McEwan (Knopf: $30) A genre-bending love story about people and the words they leave behind.
3. Katabasis by R. F. Kuang (Harper Voyager: $32) Two rival graduate students journey to hell to save their professor’s soul.
4. The Secret of Secrets by Dan Brown (Doubleday: $38) Symbologist Robert Langdon takes on a mystery involving human consciousness and ancient mythology.
5. Alchemised by SenLinYu (Del Rey: $35) A woman with missing memories fights to survive a war-torn world of necromancy and alchemy.
6. Heart the Lover by Lily King (Grove Press: $28) A woman reflects on a youthful love triangle and its consequences.
7. The Correspondent by Virginia Evans (Crown: $28) A lifelong letter writer reckons with a painful period in her past.
8. The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny by Kiran Desai (Hogarth: $32) The fates of two young people intersect and diverge across continents and years.
9. We Love You, Bunny by Mona Awad (S&S/Marysue Rucci Books: $30) The follow-up to the campus satire “Bunny” goes on a journey into the heart of dark academia.
10. Culpability by Bruce Holsinger (Spiegel & Grau: $30) A family drama about moral responsibility in the age of artificial intelligence.
…
Hardcover nonfiction
1. 107 Days by Kamala Harris (Simon & Schuster: $30) The former vice president tells her story of one of the wildest and most consequential presidential campaigns in American history.
2. Good Things by Samin Nosrat (Random House: $45) The celebrated chef shares 125 meticulously tested recipes.
3. We the People by Jill Lepore (Liveright: $40) The historian offers a wholly new history of the Constitution.
4. The Let Them Theory by Mel Robbins (Hay House: $30) How to stop wasting energy on things you can’t control.
5. Poems & Prayers by Matthew McConaughey (Crown: $29) The Oscar-winning actor shares his writings and reflections.
6. Mother Mary Comes to Me by Arundhati Roy (Scribner: $30) The acclaimed novelist’s first memoir takes on the complex relationship with her mother.
7. I’m Just a Little Guy by Charlie James, Paige Tompkins (illustrator) (Quirk Books: $15) The comedian offers a softer, sillier, sunnier way to walk through life.
8. All the Way to the River by Elizabeth Gilbert (Riverhead Books: $35) The bestselling author’s memoir about an intense and ultimately tragic love.
9. Lessons From Cats for Surviving Fascism by Stewart Reynolds (Grand Central Publishing: $13) A guide to channeling feline wisdom in the face of authoritarian nonsense.
10. Truly by Lionel Richie (HarperOne: $36) The music legend tells his story.
…
Paperback fiction
1. I Who Have Never Known Men by Jacqueline Harpman (Transit Books: $17)
2. Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir (Ballantine: $20)
3. Martyr! by Kaveh Akbar (Vintage: $18)
4. The Lion Women of Tehran by Marjan Kamali (Gallery Books: $19)
5. Tell Me Everything by Elizabeth Strout (Random House Trade Paperbacks: $18)
6. The Frozen River by Ariel Lawhon (Vintage: $18)
7. Intermezzo by Sally Rooney (Picador: $19)
8. Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver (Harper Perennial: $22)
9. Remarkably Bright Creatures by Shelby Van Pelt (Ecco: $20)
10. All Fours by Miranda July (Riverhead Books: $19)
…
Paperback nonfiction
1. On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder (Crown: $12)
2. The Art Thief by Michael Finkel (Vintage: $18)
3. Revenge of the Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell (Back Bay Books: $22)
4. The Body Keeps the Score by Dr. Bessel van der Kolk (Penguin: $19)
5. The Wide Wide Sea by Hampton Sides (Vintage: $19)
6. The Artist’s Way by Julia Cameron (TarcherPerigee: $24)
7. The White Album by Joan Didion (Farrar, Straus & Giroux: $18)
8. All About Love by bell hooks (Morrow: $17)
9. Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer (Milkweed Editions: $22)
10. All the Beauty in the World by Patrick Bringley (Simon & Schuster: $19)
No one goes to Cannes expecting to be frightened by a film about a long-dead British writer. Unless, of course, that writer is George Orwell.
When Raoul Peck’s documentary “Orwell: 2+2=5” premiered at the festival in May, the crowd reacted with the startled tension of a horror screening — gasps, murmurs, a few cries — before finally breaking into thunderous applause.
What they saw on screen felt both familiar and terrifyingly current. Peck builds the film entirely from Orwell’s words, delivered in a low, steady burn by actor Damian Lewis (“Billions”), repositioning the dying author of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” in his final tubercular days on the Scottish Isle of Jura, into today’s world. His vision of power, propaganda and language as a weapon meets a barrage of torn-from-the-news imagery: refugees adrift on boats, authoritarian leaders twisting the truth, AI hallucinations blurring what’s left of reality. The film, to be released nationwide on Friday by Neon, plays less like a documentary than a séance in which Orwell’s ghost watches his own warnings play out: urgent, relentless, immersive as a nightmare.
Peck says the Cannes reception didn’t surprise him.
“I knew it would touch a nerve,” Peck, 72, says over Zoom from New York. His calm, French-accented voice — he’s based in Paris but travels frequently — carries the quiet fatigue of someone who’s spent decades watching history repeat itself. “It’s not just a problem of the U.S. — it’s everywhere. We have all sorts of bullies and there’s no reliable sheriff in town. Even the most powerful institutions are on shaky ground. I knew the film would either break people or energize them. If you’re a normal citizen, a normal human being, you must ask yourself questions when you come out of it.”
There are no talking heads in Peck’s film, no experts spelling out the relevance of an author who died in 1950. Instead, he draws from the writer’s letters and diaries, as well as the longer-form works like the barnyard political allegory “Animal Farm” and the dystopian novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” He also weaves in fragments from past screen adaptations of Orwell’s titles, including the 1954 animated “Animal Farm” and Michael Radford’s stark, desaturated adaptation of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” starring John Hurt, cross-cutting them with current images of drone wars, surveillance and algorithmic control.
A scene from the documentary “Orwell: 2+2=5.”
(Velvet Film)
“Raoul has been unbelievably thorough,” says narrator Lewis via Zoom from his home in London, where he regularly rides his bike past one of Orwell’s former residences. “The film is dense in the best way, thick with ideas and images. You come out of it feeling like you’ve been through something important.”
Lewis, who delivers Orwell’s words with a steely intensity that builds toward alarm, says his warnings have only grown more urgent.
“I read recently that about 37% of countries in the world are now categorized as not free,” he adds. “That’s getting dangerously close to half the planet. What Raoul’s film captures — and what Orwell saw so clearly — is how authoritarian ideas don’t arrive overnight. They creep up on us, little by little, as words like ‘democracy’ get redefined to mean whatever those in power want them to mean.”
Peck’s filmmaking has long blurred the line between art and activism. Born in Haiti, he fled with his family from François Duvalier’s dictatorship in 1961 and grew up in what was then the Republic of the Congo (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), where his father worked for the United Nations. After studying engineering and economics in Berlin, he returned home to serve as Haiti’s minister of culture in the 1990s. His breakthrough, the Oscar-nominated 2016 film “I Am Not Your Negro,” channeled James Baldwin’s words to examine race and power in America and the country’s uneasy reckoning with its past. He continued that exploration in HBO’s “Exterminate All the Brutes” (2021), tracing the myths of empire and white supremacy that shape the modern world.
“If I can’t mix politics and art, I probably wouldn’t make a project,” Peck says. “That’s what Orwell himself said — ‘Animal Farm’ was the first time he was really trying to link politics with art. And that’s what I’ve been trying to do all my life as a filmmaker.”
Few writers have been more quoted — or misquoted — than Orwell. Decades after coining ideas such as Newspeak (state-controlled language) and doublethink (the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at once), he’s been claimed by every side: Fear-mongering politicians cite him, pundits weaponize him, partisans wield “Orwellian” as shorthand for whatever offends them most. Even President Trump recently praised Orwell in the same breath as Shakespeare and Dickens at a state banquet at Windsor Castle.
Asked what Orwell would make of that, Peck gives a small, mirthless laugh.
“He would probably faintly smile,” he says. “Because that’s exactly what he wrote about — how thought corrupts language and language corrupts thought. We’re living doublespeak now in an exponential way, the bully using the words of justice and peace while bombing people at the same moment. It’s so absurd. That’s why I feel so close to him. Coming from Haiti, I learned very early that what politicians were saying never matched my reality.”
George Orwell, author of “1984” and “Animal Farm,” whose warnings about power and language echo through the timely documentary “Orwell: 2+2=5.”
(Associated Press)
Peck came to the project warily. “Honestly, I wasn’t sure I wanted to touch Orwell,” he admits. “Where I come from, Orwell had been turned into a kind of Cold War mascot.” Raised under Mobutu Sese Seko’s U.S.-backed regime in what became Zaire and later educated in America and Europe, he was keenly aware of how Orwell’s legacy had been co-opted, from the CIA’s funding of the 1954 animated “Animal Farm” to the deployment of his books as Cold War propaganda.
“That was not something that interested me,” Peck says. “I grew up deconstructing everything I was getting from the West, including Hollywood movies.”
Then came a call from his friend, Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker and producer Alex Gibney (“Taxi to the Dark Side”), who was involved with a project that had secured the rights to Orwell’s complete body of work and wanted Peck to direct it.
“How could I say no?” he recalls. “For a filmmaker like me, who loves to dig deep into someone’s mind and work, it was an incredible gift.”
What Peck found wasn’t a prophet or a symbol but a man full of contradictions: a writer wrestling with class, illness and empire, trying to fuse politics and art before his own time ran out. That realization deepened when he came across a photograph of Orwell as a baby in the arms of his Burmese nanny, a white child of the British Empire cradled by the colonized woman charged with his care. Born into what he called the “lower-upper-middle class,” Orwell gradually recognized his own complicity in the system he opposed and came to despise his role as a kind of middle manager in the machinery of oppression.
“His own biography — born in India, sent to Burma as a young soldier, doing what he did there and being ashamed of it — drew him closer to my own experience,” Peck says. “We were from the same world. We saw the same things.”
To embody Orwell, Peck turned to Lewis, also known for “Band of Brothers” and “Homeland.”
“I knew I was telling a story, not making a traditional documentary,” Peck says. “So I needed a great British actor, someone with real stage experience. I knew Damian could bring the presence I wanted — to be Orwell, not imitate him. That was the main direction I gave him: to work from the interior.”
“If we don’t bring rules around AI very rapidly, we won’t be able to put the paste back in the tube,” says filmmaker Raoul Peck. “AI is an instrument and should stay an instrument. That means we’re using it. It’s not using us.”
(Justin Jun Lee / For The Times)
Lewis, who had previously voiced Orwell for the international Talking Statues project — an app that lets passersby scan a QR code to hear historical figures “speak” — approached the feature-length performance with similar restraint.
“His language, the rhythm of his prose, dictates the rhythm of delivery,” he says. “Raoul was very clear that it should sound intimate and conversational, not overly formal. That’s what we tried to aim for — something direct, specific, detailed and personal.”
Much of “Orwell: 2+2=5” unfolds like a fever dream, Orwell’s words colliding with scenes from the present, including bombed-out streets in Gaza and Ukraine. “There were too many conflicts to include,” Peck says. “So I had to find the connections — what repeats, how bodies are treated, how power behaves.”
In one of the film’s most charged moments, Peck turns Orwell’s warning about political language into a montage of modern euphemisms: “peacekeeping operations,” “collateral damage,” “illegals” — and then, pointedly, “antisemitism 2024.” He knows the inclusion is provocative but says that’s the point: to show how words can be twisted or emptied of meaning, including in debates over Israel’s war in Gaza.
“Every word is precise,” Peck says. “I don’t say the Jews, I don’t say Israel, I say the Israeli administration. But even then, there’s a reflex — you can’t touch this.”
At Cannes, that moment drew applause. One of Peck’s closest friends — a Jewish writer who, he notes, agrees with him on nearly everything politically — told him later that while she was deeply moved by the film, she’d felt a jolt of fear as the audience clapped.
“We talked about it,” Peck says. “In France today, you can’t touch that term. And for me, that’s the beginning of the end — when you can’t speak your mind.”
He recalls being in New York after 9/11, unable to voice unease about the flag-waving and rush to war. “I cried like everybody else,” he says. “But when, after five days, you’re asked to wave a flag, that’s using your humanity for war. The point is the same — to shut down conversation.”
Peck carries Orwell’s warning into the digital present. The writer’s words play against AI-generated images and voices, echoes of the future he once imagined.
“He wrote about it without knowing it would be called AI,” Peck says. “He said someday you’d be able to write whole books and newspapers with artificial intelligence — exactly what’s happening now.”
For Peck, the technology is the next front in the battle over truth and power. In his film, every AI-generated sound, image and piece of music is clearly labeled with onscreen text.
“There should be transparency about that,” he says. “If we don’t bring rules around AI very rapidly, we won’t be able to put the paste back in the tube. Profit is the only guideline right now — nobody’s controlling its impact, not on energy, not on children, not on schools. AI is an instrument and should stay an instrument. That means we’re using it. It’s not using us.”
Even as “Orwell: 2+2=5” reaches theaters, Peck is already working on two new documentaries, including one about the 2021 assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse.
“It’s an incredible geopolitical mess,” he says. “Every day I discover more. I need to go back to fiction for a while — documentaries are exhausting. But I can’t complain. I wish everyone could be as passionate about their work as I am.”
For all its darkness, Peck insists on leaving a sliver of light. He points to Orwell’s line in “Nineteen Eighty-Four”: “If there is hope, it lies in the proles.”
“The civil society is always the one who saved the day — the civilians, the students, the churches, the alliances,” he says. “Like the civil rights movement. Blacks, Jews, whites, churches, everybody sat down around the table and decided to have a strategy. And unfortunately, that’s the only thing we have. It’s long and it’s hard, but that door is still open. It’s us, individually and collectively, who have to make that choice.”
What keeps him going, he says, isn’t optimism so much as duty.
“If I lived completely engulfed in my own bubble, I’d probably be desperate,” he says. “What keeps me grounded is that I still have friends in Congo. I still work with Haiti every day. I talk with journalists who risk their lives in Gaza. So I can’t afford to look at those people and say, ‘I’m tired.’ They’re still doing the work.”
He pauses, his voice tightening. “People laugh at the latest stupidity from the president, as if it’s funny,” he says. “But that’s a dictatorship coming. He’s attacking every institution — newspapers, academia, justice, business. It’s the same playbook. They change the laws first, because most people would rather obey the law than say ‘No, two plus two equals four.’ That’s what authoritarian leaders count on.”
He sits quietly for a moment. “People are waiting for miracles,” he says finally. “But there are no miracles.”
1. Alchemised by SenLinYu (Del Rey: $35) A woman with missing memories fights to survive a war-torn world of necromancy and alchemy.
2. What We Can Know by Ian McEwan (Knopf: $30) A genre-bending love story about people and the words they leave behind.
3. The Secret of Secrets by Dan Brown (Doubleday: $38) Symbologist Robert Langdon takes on a mystery involving human consciousness and ancient mythology.
4. The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny by Kiran Desai (Hogarth: $32) The fates of two young people intersect and diverge across continents and years.
5. Katabasis by R. F. Kuang (Harper Voyager: $35) The deluxe limited edition of a dark academia fantasy about two rival graduate students’ descent into hell.
6. This Inevitable Ruin by Matt Dinniman (Ace: $39) Carl and Princess Donut are ready for battle in the seventh book of the Dungeon Crawler Carl series.
7. We Love You, Bunny by Mona Awad (S&S/Marysue Rucci Books: $30) The follow-up to the campus satire “Bunny” goes on a journey into the heart of dark academia.
8. My Friends by Fredrik Backman (Atria Books: $30) The bond between a group of teenagers 25 years earlier has a powerful effect on a budding artist.
9. The Wedding People by Alison Espach (Henry Holt & Co.: $29) An unexpected wedding guest gets surprise help on starting anew.
10. Culpability by Bruce Holsinger (Spiegel & Grau: $30) A family drama about moral responsibility in the age of artificial intelligence.
…
Hardcover nonfiction
1. 107 Days by Kamala Harris (Simon & Schuster: $30) The former vice president tells her story of one of the wildest and most consequential presidential campaigns in American history.
2. All the Way to the River by Elizabeth Gilbert (Riverhead Books: $35) The bestselling author’s memoir about an intense and ultimately tragic love.
3. Faithonomics by Jerry Lopez (Jerry Lopez: $29) Biblical wisdom is paired with modern-day financial strategies.
4. Good Things by Samin Nosrat (Random House: $45) The celebrated chef shares 125 meticulously tested recipes.
5. Poems & Prayers by Matthew McConaughey (Crown: $29) The Oscar-winning actor shares his writings and reflections.
6. Lessons From Cats for Surviving Fascism by Stewart Reynolds (Grand Central Publishing: $13) A guide to channeling feline wisdom in the face of authoritarian nonsense.
7. Replaceable You by Mary Roach (W. W. Norton & Co.: $29) An exploration of the remarkable advances and difficult questions prompted by the human body’s failings.
8. Art Work by Sally Mann (Abrams Press: $35) The artist explores the challenges and pleasures of the creative process.
9. When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows … by Steven Pinker (Scribner: $30) How the hidden logic of common knowledge can make sense of many of life’s enigmas.
10. Separation of Church and Hate by John Fugelsang (Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster: $30) The comedian uses the writings of the Bible to highlight Christian hypocrisy while calling for compassion and clarity.
…
Paperback fiction
1. Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir (Ballantine: $20)
2. The City and Its Uncertain Walls by Haruki Murakami (Vintage: $19)
3. Remarkably Bright Creatures by Shelby Van Pelt (Ecco: $20)
4. I Who Have Never Known Men by Jacqueline Harpman (Transit Books: $17)
5. All Fours by Miranda July (Riverhead Books: $19)
6. The Best Short Stories 2025 by Edward P. Jones (editor) (Vintage: $19)
7. The Life Impossible by Matt Haig (Penguin: $19)
8. Martyr! by Kaveh Akbar (Vintage: $18)
9. The Frozen River by Ariel Lawhon (Vintage: $18)
10. The Midnight Library by Matt Haig (Penguin: $18)
…
Paperback nonfiction
1. Alignment by Katie Keller Wood (Page Two: $19)
2. All About Love by bell hooks (Morrow: $17)
3. The Artist’s Way by Julia Cameron (TarcherPerigee: $24)
4. Didion and Babitz by Lili Anolik (Scribner: $20)
5. Autocracy, Inc. by Anne Applebaum (Vintage: $18)
6. The Art Thief by Michael Finkel (Vintage: $18)
7. The White Album by Joan Didion (Farrar, Straus & Giroux: $18)
8. Greenlights by Matthew McConaughey (Crown: $20)
9. The Friday Afternoon Club by Griffin Dunne (Penguin Books: $21)
10. Catching the Big Fish by David Lynch (Tarcher: $20)
The expression “stay woke” started out as an affirmation for African Americans.
In the last decade it has been used by some Republicans — and some Democrats — as a pejorative for people thought to be too “politically correct,” another term that took on negative connotations as it gained wider use.
“Woke” has come up in cultural and political firestorms. Eight months into his second term, President Trump pledged to review content at the Smithsonian Institution for being “WOKE” and where “everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was.” At the beginning of this year, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared in his State of the State address that government would keep “woke agendas” out of universities and K-12 schools, including “woke gender ideologies.”
On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he was ending the “woke” culture in the military, saying the service has been hamstrung by political correctness. He referenced diversity efforts, transgender troops, environmental policies and other disciplinary rules.
“America is no longer woke under President Trump’s leadership. The word ‘woke’ represents radical ideologies that are used [to] divide the American people and harm our country,” Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement.
Here’s where “woke” came from, and how its meaning has evolved:
The history of ‘woke’
“Wokeness” originated decades ago as African American cultural slang for having awareness and enlightenment around racism, injustice, privilege or threats of white supremacist violence.
Several historians trace the idea to a 1923 compilation of speeches and articles by Jamaican-born Black nationalist Marcus Garvey. In one essay, Garvey writes “Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!” Another reference appears in 1938 in the song “Scottsboro Boys,” by blues artist Lead Belly, whose real name was Huddie Ledbetter. The tune follows the true story of four Black youths unjustly convicted by an all-white jury of the rape of two white women (they were later freed). The lyrics warn Black listeners to be careful and “stay woke. Keep your eyes open.”
Gerald McWorter, a professor emeritus of African American studies and of information sciences at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, says “woke” was about having a voice after hundreds of years of Black suffering going back to the African slave trade.
The phrase also popped up in a 1962 essay by novelist William Melvin Kelley for the New York Times. The headline — “If You’re Woke, You Dig It.” Kelley’s widow and daughter believe he heard the term while walking around their Harlem neighborhood, said Elijah Watson, a pop culture writer and editor who has written about Kelley, who died in 2017.
‘Woke’ reawakening
In the 21st century, singer-songwriter Erykah Badu is often credited with reviving the term “woke.” Her song “Master Teacher” on her 2008 album, “New Amerykah: Part One,” includes the refrain “I stay woke.” Badu picked up the phrase from co-writer and producer Georgia Anne Muldrow, who heard it from a saxophone player she collaborated with — Lakecia Benjamin.
The 2014 fatal shooting by a white police officer of 18-year-old Michael Brown — who was Black and unarmed — in Ferguson, Mo., made “woke” and “stay woke” galvanizing pledges in the growing Black Lives Matter movement.
The movement drew support from other racial groups. “Woke” also became popularized by white liberals who wanted to show they were allies.
The war on woke
The backlash against “woke” and “wokeness” bubbled up in the 2010s, amid discussions about including more Black history in American history lessons. Many people said that bringing “critical race theory” to schools was meant to program children to feel guilty for being white.
This argument became front and center in 2022 when Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act” into law. It banned teaching or business practices on race and gender. (The law is now on hold after a federal judge deemed it unconstitutional).
For George Pearson, a former chair of the Illinois Black Republican Coalition, “woke” is a hollow word.
Democratic politicians who purport to be “champions” of wokeness and DEI have done little for Black people, he said. So, “woke” has no sway as a rallying cry. He also thinks it’s unfair that those who do not support “woke-ism” are told “’you’re racist. You’re a homophobe. You’re a bigot.”
Even among liberal Black Americans, there is a debate whether the intention of “woke” does more harm than good.
Who says woke now?
In Watson’s experience, “woke” is no longer part of Black vernacular. If he hears it from anyone in his social circles, it’s almost always said “in jest.”
Some progressives are trying to take the word back. Academy Award-winning actor and activist Jane Fonda brought up being “woke” while receiving the Screen Actors Guild lifetime achievement award in front of an A-list audience.
“Make no mistake, empathy is not weak or woke. By the way, woke just means you give a damn about other people,” Fonda said.
Seena Hodges started her own business as a DEI strategist for individuals and groups in 2018 and called it the Woke Coach. She and her team consult on everything from workplace interactions to best recruiting practices. She touches on inclusion for groups from people of color to breastfeeding mothers.
The “bastardization” of “woke” and DEI as words akin to slurs doesn’t bother her, she said. To her, at its core being “woke” is about awareness.
“What it really boils down to is helping people develop a more acute level of emotional intelligence,” she said.
Tang writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christopher Megerian in Washington contributed to this report.
1. The Secret of Secrets by Dan Brown (Doubleday: $38) Symbologist Robert Langdon takes on a mystery involving human consciousness and ancient mythology.
2. My Friends by Fredrik Backman (Atria Books: $30) The bond between a group of teenagers 25 years earlier has a powerful effect on a budding artist.
3. Katabasis by R. F. Kuang (Harper Voyager: $35) The deluxe limited edition of a dark academia fantasy about two rival graduate students’ descent into hell.
4. The Academy by Elin Hilderbrand and Shelby Cunningham (Little, Brown &. Co.: $30) Scandal and drama unfold at a New England boarding school.
5. Culpability by Bruce Holsinger (Spiegel & Grau: $30) A suspenseful family drama about moral responsibility in the age of artificial intelligence.
6. Among the Burning Flowers by Samantha Shannon (Bloomsbury Publishing: $30) Long-slumbering dragons awaken in a prequel to fantasy bestseller “The Priory of The Orange Tree.”
7. Clown Town by Mick Herron (Soho Crime: $30) The disgraced spies of Slough House are caught between MI5’s secret past and its murky future.
8. The Shattering Peace by John Scalzi (Tor Books: $30) A return to the galaxy of the Old Man’s War series.
9. Wild Dark Shore by Charlotte McConaghy (Flatiron Books: $29) As sea levels rise, a family on a remote island rescues a mysterious woman.
10. The Emperor of Gladness by Ocean Vuong (Penguin Press: $30) An unlikely pair develops a life-altering bond.
…
Hardcover nonfiction
1. All the Way to the River by Elizabeth Gilbert (Riverhead Books: $35) The bestselling author’s memoir about an intense and ultimately tragic love.
2. The Book of Sheen by Charlie Sheen (Gallery Books: $35) The movie and TV star reflects on his turbulent life.
3. Good Things by Samin Nosrat (Random House: $45) The celebrated chef shares 125 meticulously tested recipes.
4. We the People by Jill Lepore (Liveright: $40) The historian offers a wholly new history of the Constitution.
5. Art Work by Sally Mann (Abrams Press: $35) The artist explores the challenges and pleasures of the creative process.
6. The Let Them Theory by Mel Robbins (Hay House: $30) How to stop wasting energy on things you can’t control.
7. Night People by Mark Ronson (Grand Central Publishing: $29) The Grammy-winning record producer chronicles his early DJ days.
8. Mother Mary Comes to Me by Arundhati Roy (Scribner: $30) The acclaimed novelist’s first memoir takes on the complex relationship with her mother.
9. Coming Up Short by Robert B. Reich (Knopf: $30) A memoir by the political commentator of growing up in a baby-boom America.
10. Poems & Prayers by Matthew McConaughey (Crown: $29) The Oscar-winning actor shares his writings and reflections.
…
Paperback fiction
1. The Ministry of Time by Kaliane Bradley (Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster: $19)
2. Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir (Ballantine: $20)
3. The Frozen River by Ariel Lawhon (Vintage: $18)
4. The City and Its Uncertain Walls by Haruki Murakami (Vintage: $19)
5. Tell Me Everything by Elizabeth Strout (Random House Trade Paperbacks: $18)
6. The Safekeep by Yael van der Wouden (Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster: $19)
7. Martyr! by Kaveh Akbar (Vintage: $18)
8. Red Rising by Pierce Brown (Del Rey: $18)
9. The Lion Women of Tehran by Marjan Kamali (Gallery Books: $19)
10. Starter Villain by John Scalzi (Tor Books: $19)
…
Paperback nonfiction
1. All the Beauty in the World by Patrick Bringley (Simon & Schuster: $19)
2. On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder (Crown: $12)
3. Nexus by Yuval Noah Harari (Random House Trade Paperbacks: $25)
4. The Art Thief by Michael Finkel (Vintage: $18)
5. Autocracy, Inc. by Anne Applebaum (Vintage: $18)
6. The Friday Afternoon Club by Griffin Dunne (Penguin Books: $21)
7. Catching the Big Fish by David Lynch (Tarcher: $20)
8. Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer (Milkweed Editions: $22)
9. The Wager by David Grann (Vintage: $21)
10. How to Dream by Thich Nhat Hanh (Parallax Press: $11)
This week, the Trump administration announced that it was taking “bold action” to address the “epidemic” of autism spectrum disorder — starting with a new safety label on Tylenol and other acetaminophen products that suggests a link to autism. The scientific evidence for doing so is weak, researchers said.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said federal officials “will be uncompromising and relentless in our search for answers” and that they soon would be “closely examining” the role of vaccines, whose alleged link to autism has been widely discredited.
Kennedy has long argued that rising diagnoses among U.S. children must mean more exposure to some outside influence: a drug, a chemical, a toxin, a vaccine.
“One of the things that I think that we need to move away from today is this ideology that … the autism prevalence increase, the relentless increases, are simply artifacts of better diagnoses, better recognition or changing diagnostic criteria,” Kennedy said in April.
Kennedy is correct that autism spectrum disorder rates have risen steadily in the U.S. since the U.S. Centers for Disease Control began tracking them, from 1 in 150 8-year-olds in 2000, to 1 in 31 in 2022, the most recent year for which numbers are available.
But physicians, researchers and psychologists say it is impossible to interpret this increase without acknowledging two essential facts: The diagnostic definition of autism has greatly expanded to include a much broader range of human behaviors, and we look for it more often than we used to.
“People haven’t changed that much,” said Alan Gerber, a pediatric neuropsychologist at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., “but how we talk about them, how we describe them, how we categorize them has actually changed a lot over the years.”
Defining ‘autism’
The term “autism” first appeared in the scientific literature around World War II, when two psychiatrists in different countries independently chose that word to describe two different groups of children.
In 1938, Austrian pediatrician Hans Asperger used it to describe child patients at his Vienna clinic who were verbal, often fluently so, with unusual social behaviors and at-times obsessive focus on very specific subjects.
Five years later, U.S. psychiatrist Leo Kanner published a paper about a group of children at his clinic at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore who were socially withdrawn, rigid in their thinking and extremely sensitive to stimuli like bright lights or loud noises. Most also had limited verbal language ability.
Both Asperger and Kanner chose the same word to describe these overlapping behaviors: autism. (They borrowed the term from an earlier psychiatrist’s description of extreme social withdrawal in schizophrenic patients.)
This doesn’t mean children never acted this way before. It was just the first time doctors started using that word to describe a particular set of child behaviors.
For the next few decades, many children who exhibited what we understand today to be autistic traits were labeled as having conditions that have ceased to exist as formal diagnoses, like “mental retardation,” “childhood psychosis” or “schizophrenia, childhood type.”
Autism debuted as its own diagnosis in the 1980 third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Assn.’s diagnostic bible. It described an autistic child as one who, by the age of 2½, showed impaired communication, unusual responses to their environment and a lack of interest in other people.
As the decades went on, the DSM definition of autism broadened.
The fourth edition, published in 1994, named additional behaviors: impaired relationships, struggles with nonverbal communication and speech patterns different from those of non-autistic, or neurotypical, peers.
It also included a typo that would turn out to be a crucial driver of diagnoses, wrote cultural anthropologist Roy Richard Grinker in his book “Unstrange Minds: Remapping the World of Autism.”
The DSM’s printed definition of autism included any child who displayed impairments in social interaction, communication “or” behavior. It was supposed to say social interaction, communication “and” behavior.
The error went uncorrected for six years, and the impact appeared profound. In 1995 an estimated 1 in every 500 children was diagnosed with autism. By 2000, when the CDC formally began tracking diagnoses (and the text was corrected), it was 1 in every 150.
Reaching underserved communities
In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended for the first time that all children be screened for autism between the ages of 18 and 24 months as part of their regular checkups. Prior to that, autism was diagnosed somewhat haphazardly. Not all pediatricians were familiar with the earliest indicators or used the same criteria to determine whether a child should be further evaluated.
Then in 2013, the fifth edition of the DSM took what had previously been four separate conditions — autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder and pervasive developmental disorder — and collapsed them all into a single diagnosis: autism spectrum disorder.
The diagnostic criteria for ASD included a broad range of social, communication and sensory interpretation differences that, crucially, could be identified at any time in a child’s life. The term was no longer limited only to children whose development lagged noticeably behind that of their peers.
Since that definition was adopted, U.S. schools have become more proactive about referring a greater range of children for neurodevelopmental evaluations. The new DSM language also helped educators and clinicians better understand what was keeping some kids in disadvantaged communities from thriving.
“In the past, [autism was] referred to as a ‘white child’s disability,’ because you found so few Black and brown children being identified,” said Shanter Alexander, an assistant professor of school psychology at Howard University. Children of color who struggled with things like behavioral disruptions, attention deficits or language delays, she said, were often diagnosed with intellectual disabilities or behavioral disorders.
In a sign that things have shifted, the most recent CDC survey for the first time found a higher prevalence of autism in kids of color than in white children: 3.66%, 3.82% and 3.30% for Black, Asian and Latino children, respectively, compared with 2.77% of white children.
“A lot of people think, ‘Oh, no, what does this mean? This is terrible.’ But it’s actually really positive. It means that we have been better at diagnosing Latino children [and] other groups too,” said Kristina Lopez, an associate professor at Arizona State University who studies autism in underserved communities.
The severity issue
An autism diagnosis today can apply to people who are able to graduate from college, hold professional positions and speak eloquently about their autism, as well as people who require 24-hour care and are not able to speak at all.
It includes people who were diagnosed when they were toddlers developing at a noticeably different pace from their peers, and people who embraced a diagnosis of autism in adulthood as the best description of how they relate to the world. Diagnoses for U.S. adults ages 26 to 34 alone increased by 450% between 2011 and 2022, according to one large study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Assn.
Kennedy was not correct when he said in April that “most cases now are severe.”
A 2016 review of CDC data found that approximately 26.7% of 8-year-olds with autism had what some advocates refer to as “profound autism,” the end of the spectrum that often includes seriously disabling behaviors such as seizures, self-injurious behavior and intellectual disability.
The rate of children with profound autism has remained virtually unchanged since the CDC started tracking it, said Maureen Durkin, a professor of population health science and pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Indeed, the highest rate of new diagnoses has been among children with mild limitations, she said.
For many researchers and advocates, the Trump administration’s focus on autism has provoked mixed emotions. Many have lobbied for years for more attention for this condition and the people whose lives it affects.
Now it has arrived, thanks to an administration that has played up false information while cutting support for science.
“They have attempted to panic the public with the notion of an autism epidemic as a threat to the nation, when no such epidemic actually exists — rather, more people are being diagnosed with autism today because we have broader diagnostic criteria and do a better job detecting it,” said Colin Killick, executive director of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. “It is high time that this administration stops spreading misinformation about autism, and starts enacting policies that would actually benefit our community.”
This article was reported with the support of the USC Annenberg Center for Health Journalism’s National Fellowship’s Kristy Hammam Fund for Health Journalism.
U.S. tennis star Taylor Townsend wasn’t prepared for some of the food she would be offered while taking part in the Billie Jean King Cup Finals tournament in Shenzen, China.
She apparently was also not expecting the backlash she faced after she posted her criticism of some of the local dishes — which included bullfrogs, turtles, sea cucumbers and, in her words, “an animal lung” that was “sliced up” and on a skewer — on Instagram.
Those posts have since been removed, and Townsend has posted a video on her Instagram Story in which the world’s top-ranked doubles player apologizes “sincerely from the bottom of my heart.”
“I understand that I am so privileged as a professional athlete to be able to travel all around the world and experience cultural differences, which is one of the things that I love so much about what I do,” Townsend said.
“I have had nothing but the most amazing experience and time here … and everyone has been so kind and so gracious. And the things that I said were not representative of that at all.”
The 29-year-old Townsend’s name was in the headlines during last month’s U.S. Open. After Taylor defeated Latvia’s Jelena Ostapenko in the second round of the singles competition, the players appeared to have a heated discussion.
Afterward, Townsend told reporters that Ostapenko “told me I have no education, no class.”
Ostapenko later apologized on her Instagram Story and explained that English isn’t her native language. “So when I said education,” Ostapenko wrote, “I was speaking only about what I believe [is] tennis etiquette, but I understand how the words I used could have offended many people beyond the tennis court.”
Townsend is one of six players representing the U.S. in the international team tournament in Shenzen. Earlier this week, she posted video of some of the food she and her teammates had been offered, apparently as part of a buffet. She also added a video of herself from later in the evening in which she criticized some of the offerings.
“I’m honestly just so shocked I like what I saw in the dinner buffet … These people are literally killing frogs. Bull frogs. Aren’t those poisonous? Like, aren’t those the ones that be giving you warts and boils and stuff?” Townsend said. “And turtles? And the fact that, like, it’s all stewed up with, like, chilies and peppers and onions and like, ‘Oh, you really made this a dish?’
“And then you got the sea cucumbers just staring there, like with the noodles, the only thing that we eat. So all in all, gotta give this like a solid 2 out of 10 so far, because this is crazy.”
One portion of the video, which showed portions of the buffet spread, featured the caption, “This is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen … and people are eating this,” followed by emojis of a melting face and a face screaming in fear.
The comments went viral on Chinese social media, with many commenters slamming Townsend as culturally insensitive.
Townsend’s apology comes as the U.S. prepares to face Kazakhstan on Thursday in the quarterfinals.
“I just truly wanted to apologize,” Townsend said in the new video. “There’s no excuse, there’s no words, and for me, I just — I will be better.”
Those three words are repeated again and again by parents trying to teach their young sons and daughters good manners, whether it’s at the dinner table, the amusement park or the ice cream shop.
So why do parents suddenly forget or ignore their words of wisdom when their kids become teenagers, find themselves in sports competitions, lose out on a starting job or don’t receive the attention they think they deserve and decide to flee rather than “wait your turn.”
At least the Lee family stuck to old-time parenting. Taylor Lee was a huge talent at quarterback after enrolling at Oxnard Pacifica as a freshman. He got to play a little when needed as a freshman and sophomore, but he wasn’t the starter. He stayed and waited his turn and what a reward he’s received.
In the last two games, the junior has thrown 15 touchdown passes for 4-0 Pacifica. He’s passed for 1,356 yards and 22 touchdowns with no interceptions this season. He’s picking up scholarship offers. He’s become an example for his coach, Mike Moon, though who knows how many will learn the lesson.
“For all these kids who transfer around and with not a ton of success, maybe the old-school way of grinding and waiting for your time is best,” he said.
Yes, patience is hard. Passing up an opportunity offered elsewhere is hard. Accepting the decision of a coach is hard. Listening to third parties with agendas speak glowingly of your talent is hard.
As many stories as there are of successful player movements, there’s many others of those who remember the wisdom, of “wait your turn.”
Luke Fahey of Mission Viejo.
(Craig Weston)
The No. 1 quarterback in Southern California, Ohio State-bound Luke Fahey of Mission Viejo, accepted sharing time for two seasons, trading off every other series with his teammate. He and his parents were patient and supportive. This season, on his own, he’s led the Diablos to an unbeaten record and keeps adding to his reputation as a great quarterback with great character.
The environment has changed with the introduction of the college transfer portal. No one is saying there’s anything wrong with switching schools while looking for an opportunity when someone’s path is blocked, but there’s also the old-fashioned way of staying and competing, waiting your turn, trying to get better and being ready when opportunity beckons.
It’s the quarterback position, in particular, where athletes and their parents are unwilling to be backups. Only one person gets to start. But the failure to recognize there’s other positions to try (tight end, receiver, defense?) is also a forgotten alternative.
The responsible thing is to never try to take away a dream from a passionate, committed teenager. Let them keep grinding if that’s what they want to do. But sometimes someone has to be the adult in the room, just like when they were four or five and rushing ahead in the line for an ice cream cone and mom or dad says, “Wait your turn.”
The concert version of the National Yiddish Theatre Folksbiene’s celebrated production of “Fiddler on the Roof” in Yiddish had its West Coast premiere at the Soraya last weekend, and anyone who was lucky enough to attend one of the three performances will long cherish the memory of this stunning musical experience.
Performing “Fiddler” in Yiddish returns the characters to the language of Sholem Aleichem’s stories, the fictional world from which they sprung. The musical has been translated but in a way that moves Joseph Stein’s book, Jerry Bock’s music and Sheldon Harnick’s lyrics closer to an authentic Anatevka, the village in which Tevye the milkman lives with his wife, Golde, and five daughters.
The one concern I had about a Yiddish “Fiddler” was the loss of Harnick’s piercingly simple lyrics. Harnick had a way of expressing deep universal truths in the most natural, folksy manner possible. But, fortunately, his words weren’t absent from the production. English supertitles, spotlighting Harnick’s unmatched skill, were projected prominently behind the orchestra.
The language was often comprehensible even for non-Yiddish speakers. The rich man in “If I Were a Rich Man” was translated as a variant of Rothschild, the name of a well-known European Jewish banking dynasty. And even if that reference eluded anyone, Bock’s bouncing, daydreaming, old world melody, practically encoded into our cultural DNA, assured perfect understanding.
Yael Eden Chanukov (Hodl) and Drew Seigla (Pertshik) in “Fiddler on the Roof” in Yiddish at the Soraya.
(Luis Luque/Luque Photography)
Joel Grey, the Oscar and Tony winning Master of Ceremonies of “Cabaret,” directed both the concert and the National Yiddish Theatre Folksbiene’s production, which began in New York in 2018 at the Museum of Jewish Heritage before opening off-Broadway at New World Stages in 2019. In 2022, the show returned for another run at New World Stages, satisfying the demand for one of the most talked about musical revivals of the last few years.
The 93-year-old Grey was in attendance at Saturday’s opening at the majestic Soraya. He was also a presence on screen, providing both the introduction and epilogue of what was an artfully conceived hybrid experience, a concert version of the musical focused on the songs but contextualized sufficiently to bring the audience emotionally into the story.
The orchestra, conducted by National Yiddish Theatre Folksbiene artistic director Zalmen Mlotek, gracefully guided the flow of scenes. The superb company of actors, led by Steven Skybell’s Tevye, performed musical selections arranged around brief narration and dramatic excerpts.
A commanding presence, Skybell isn’t a barnstormer but an Obie-winning actor who illuminates the humanity of whatever role he happens to be playing. His Tevye, a patriarch trying to hold his family together amid the double assault of poverty and pogroms, was especially touching in his appeal to the Almighty to ease up on the litany of suffering.
A violinist (Sara Parkins) shadowed Tevye with the haunting strains of cultural “tradition” — a loaded word. But he is forced to adapt to changing times. It’s 1905, and Anatevka isn’t the shtetl that it once was.
Revolution is in the air, and Tevye’s daughters have their own minds about their marital prospects. How does “the papa,” the upholder of tradition, as the musical’s opening number spells out, maintain his self-respect, if not his authority? The only way he can — by balancing out fits of temper with the sympathetic humor of a father’s loving heart.
“Fiddler” can sometimes occasion a flood of overacting. Not here. The daughters were too wrapped up in the most consequential decision of their lives — their choice of husbands — to chew scenery. Rachel Zatcoff as Tsaytl, Yael Eden Chanukov as Hodl and Rosie Jo Neddy as Khave channeled their ardent emotion into their singing.
Jennifer Babiak (Golde) and Steven Skybell (Tevye) in “Fiddler on the Roof” at the Soraya.
(Luis Luque/Luque Photography)
Zatcoff’s Tsaytl embodied the mature conviction that Kirk Geritano’s Motl, the poor tailor, is the only man for her. Chanukov’s Hodl, more anxious but no less resolved, made clear that her future could only be with Drew Seigla’s Pertshik, a revolutionary student. And Neddy’s Khave revealed that she was prepared to sacrifice everything to be with Griffith Frank’s Fyedka, a Russian Christian, no matter the effect on her family or herself.
What’s remarkable for a concert is how much of the production’s character work came through. In the musical number “Do You Love Me?,” when Tevye asks his wife what turns out to be a not-so-simple question, the history of an arranged marriage that has stood the test of time was laid bare. The way Jennifer Babiak’s no-nonsense Golde refused to spit out an easy answer was as telling as the gentle way Skybell’s Tevye kept prodding her to admit a truth that was perhaps too complex for words.
The humor of “Fiddler” was well accounted for in Lisa Fishman’s Yente, the matchmaker involved in everybody’s business. Samuel Druhora’s Leyzer Volf, the prosperous widower butcher eager to marry Tsaytl, played the heavy but with a soft human touch that allowed him to join in the laughter.
The Hebrew word for Torah was projected across the rear of the stage, summoning part of the original production design. The defined religious and social world, rooted in a cultural specificity, was all the more universal for its vivid particularity.
This version of “Fiddler” in Yiddish elicited in me a poignant longing for an America that once understood itself as a nation of immigrants, bound together by the dream of a better life, regardless of creed or national origin or accent.
“Fiddler on the Roof,” perhaps the most unifying American musical of the 20th century, reminds us of the long, hard road many of our ancestors traveled to arrive at a country founded on (however imperfectly realized) democratic ideals. I’m thinking now of my parents and grandparents, but also of my students, whose families come from different parts of the world but whose paths follow a similar trajectory.
It’s a pity that this concert had such a brief run. But how lucky to experience at this fragile moment the values of generosity and empathy underlying this classic American musical — values that once made it possible to transcend our political differences and find ourselves in each other’s stories.
One bill aims to raise lagging reading skills among California children by mandating how schools teach this critical subject. Another seeks to overhaul cafeteria meals by eliminating highly processed foods. A third aims to protect students from being derailed by discrimination.
These bills and others passed by the Legislature in the session’s final busy days will directly affect the classroom experience of some 5.8 million California public schools students. Broadly speaking, these bills target students’ minds, health and emotional well-being — and the results were not without controversy.
The measures now land on the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has until Oct. 12 to approve or reject them.
Assembly Bill 715: Anti-discrimination
Among the most hotly contested education-related measures, Assembly Bill 715 was spawned from dissatisfaction — largely among a coalition of Jewish groups — to the way ethnic studies is being taught in some California classrooms. Critics say that in some schools, ethnic studies classes have improperly focused on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and that they reflect bias against Jews. The allegations of bias are denied by those instructors who include the conflict in their syllabus.
The final version of the bill — paired with companion Senate Bill 48 — would expand the focus beyond antisemitism, a revision that responds to those who questioned why the original bill language addressed only discrimination against Jews.
“California has taken a historic stand against antisemitism in our schools,” said David Bocarsly, executive director of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California. “For far too long, Jewish students have endured slurs, bullying, and open hostility in their classrooms with nowhere to turn. AB 715 is a promise to those students — and to all children in California — that they are not invisible, that their safety and dignity matter.”
The legislation that finally emerged would create a state Office for Civil Rights that reports to the governor’s cabinet. It would take on a monitoring and assistance mission — fielding complaints and questions; preparing learning materials and reports on identifying and combating discrimination; and helping teachers, schools and school districts comply with state anti-discrimination laws.
Different forms of discrimination would be addressed by a specialized coordinator — one each for antisemitism, religious discrimination, race and ethnicity discrimination, gender discrimination and LGBTQ+ discrimination.
Issues related to ethnic studies would include ensuring anti-discriminatory course and teacher training materials. To investigate formal complaints, the state would rely on an existing complaint procedure, which examines alleged violations involving discrimination, harassment, intimidation and bullying.
Critics of AB 715 — which include the California Teachers Assn. — acknowledge that bill was revised to address their concerns but still oppose it. They say it could chill discussion of controversial issues in ethnic students and elsewhere and also falsely equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
AB 1454: Science of Reading
A sweeping bill would overhaul how reading is taught in California classrooms — mandating phonics-based lessons and culminating decades of debate on how best to teach children this foundational skill. The bill is unusual in a state that generally emphasizes local control over instruction.
AB 1454 would require school districts to adopt instructional materials grounded in what supporters call the “science of reading,” which is based on research about how young children learn to read.
The now-favored approach leans heavily on decoding and sounding out words based on the letter sounds, while laying out five pillars for more effective instruction: phonemic awareness (the sounds that letters make), phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.
The hope is that this teaching style will boost persistently disappointing test scores.
A 2022 study of 300 school districts in California found that fewer than 2% of districts were using curricula that proponents viewed as sufficiently strong in science-of-reading practices.
These advocates have long been critical of alternative “whole language” approaches that rely heavily on the concept that children are more engaged when they learn to read with less emphasis on decoding words. Teachers focus instead on surrounding children with books to foster a love of reading, directing children to figure out unknown words based on context, pictures and other clues.
“Transforming California’s education system requires a coordinated approach rooted in proven solutions,” said Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, an education advocacy nonprofit that has championed the change.
Many California teachers, however, remain committed to different methods and chafe at a state-mandated approach, especially one that runs counter to their classroom experience and previous training. Advocates for students learning English have voiced especially strong opposition to the science-of-reading philosophy.
AB 1264: Ultra-processed foods
Chicken nuggets, corn dogs, packaged frozen pizza, chips, canned fruits and sugary cereals are the types of ultra-processed foods in school meals targeted in Assembly Bill 1264, which would require healthier cafeteria options in the years ahead.
Heavily processed foods often include reconstituted meat along with chemical additives such as preservatives, emulsifiers, coloring and other ingredients absent from scratch cooking — not to mention added sugars, fats and salt — that together can harm students “physical and mental health and interfere with their ability to learn,” according to bill author Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino).
The bill was opposed by manufacturers who considered it too constraining and too subject to non-scientific whims.
The final version eased some concerns by setting up a review process rather than simply listing foods and chemicals to ban. There also is a gradual phase-in over several years.
The expectation is that processed foods that remain on the menu will be healthier and also that there will be an acceleration of efforts to prepare foods within school kitchens, relying as much as possible on local and fresh ingredients.
AB 564: Cannabis tax and child care
The Legislature also voted to claw back an increase to the cannabis excise tax, which took effect in July and raised the state tax rate paid by consumers to 19%. The goal is to bolster the struggling legal-cannabis industry. A chunk of child-care funding is among the casualties of the lower tax revenue.
Assembly Bill 564 would mean an estimated $180-million annual reduction for law enforcement, child care, services for at-risk youth and environmental cleanup. Of the total, about $81 million would have funded subsidized child-care slots for about 8,000 children from low-income families. Overall, the state budget to assist with child care is $7 billion, a figure that advocates view as short of what’s needed, especially with further potential cuts looming.
Other notable measures
Assembly Bill 461 would end the treatment of truancy as a crime under state law. Existing law can subject the parent or guardian of a student who is chronically absent or late to school with a fine of up to $2,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.
Prosecutions are rare and the potential penalties are typically viewed as deterrents. But the pendulum in California has shifted away from tough-on-truancy measures to alternatives such as counseling and family assistance.
The Legislature also has passed bills in support of immigrant families, that will frequently have a carryover effect on how schools operate, such as a bill that bars immigration officers from campus unless they have a valid judicial warrant.
Times staff writer Daniel Miller contributed to this report. Gold reports for The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.
