Israeli airstrike in southern Lebanon kills 3 journalists covering the war

By

-

March 28, 2026

BEIRUT (AP) — An Israeli airstrike on southern Lebanon on Saturday killed three journalists who were covering the latest Israel-Hezbollah war, their TV stations said.

Hezbollah’s al-Manar TV said that its longtime correspondent Ali Shoeib was killed Saturday in southern Lebanon.

The Israeli military said that it had targeted Shoeib, accusing him of being a Hezbollah intelligence operative without providing evidence.

Meanwhile, Beirut-based pan-Arab Al-Mayadeen TV said reporter Fatima Ftouni was killed in the same airstrike in the southern district of Jezzine along with her brother Mohammed, a video journalist. She had just been on air with a live report from southern Lebanon before the strike.

Top officials in Lebanon condemned the strike, with President Joseph Aoun calling it a “flagrant crime that violates all laws and agreements that protect journalists.”

Al-Manar said in a report that an Israeli airstrike targeted journalists, leading to the “martyrdom of the icon of resistance media.” A well-known Lebanese war correspondent, Shoeib had covered south Lebanon for Al-Manar for nearly three decades.

The Israeli army claimed that Shoeib was “operating systematically to expose the locations of (Israeli) soldiers operating in southern Lebanon.” The army also accused him of maintaining contact with Hezbollah militants and inciting against Israeli troops and civilians, without elaborating.

Al-Manar TV did not respond to the Israeli allegations but described its correspondent as “distinguished by his professional and credible reporting of events.”

Israel’s claim mirrored past Israeli military allegations against Palestinian journalists that it targeted in its war on Hamas the Gaza Strip, accusing them of being Hamas militants posing as reporters.

The Israeli military did not mention the two others who died in its statement.

Since the last Israel-Hezbollah war began on March 2, Israel’s air force has struck Hezbollah’s civilian targets, including the headquarters of Al-Manar and the group’s Al-Nour radio station.

Saturday’s strike came days after an Israeli airstrike on an apartment in central Beirut killed Mohammed Sherri, the head of political programs at Al-Manar TV, along with his wife.

The latest deaths bring the number of journalists and media workers killed this year in Lebanon to five.

The Committee to Protect Journalists said that freelance photojournalist Hussain Hamood, who used to collaborate with Al-Manar TV, was also killed Wednesday in the southern city of Nabatiyeh.

Investors caught between AI utopia and AI doom loop

By

Staff Reports

-

March 28, 2026

Hollywood has long been fascinated by artificial intelligence (AI), portraying it as a miraculously powerful force — for good and evil. I have a special affinity for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator, who explained how Cyberdyne Systems’ Skynet assumed control of U.S. strategic defenses, became sentient (self-aware) and responded to shutdown attempts by its human masters by launching a nuclear attack.

Was this just sci-fi fright, or is AI — as OpenAI co-founder Elon Musk has warned — “far more dangerous” than nuclear weapons and an existential risk to humanity?

For Wall Street, the promise of AI became real when OpenAI’s ChatGPT burst onto the scene in November 2022. Since then, AI has gone from shiny toy to market menace in record time. In just a few days, a fictional memo from the future knocked billions off blue‑chip stocks, a former karaoke company tanked trucking shares by uttering the magic letters “AI,” and Jack Dorsey calmly announced he would cut 40% of Block’s (parent of payment processors Square and Cash App) workforce because, in his words, everyone else is “late” to right‑sizing for the age of machine intelligence.

Citrini Research lit the fuse with a Substack titled “The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis,” describing a dystopian near-future America where unemployment has soared to 10.2% and the S&P 500 has crashed 38% from its October 2026 high. The scenario is straightforward simple and alarming: highly capable AI agents rapidly replace well-paid white‑collar workers and turn today’s stable, fee‑rich intermediaries—payment networks, insurers, wealth managers, real‑estate brokers—into thin-margined middlemen.

In this AI “doom loop,” companies cut workers to protect margins, redirect the savings into more AI, enabling even deeper cuts. Those job losses then depress household spending—the very spending that drives roughly three‑quarters of discretionary spending.

It’s a disaster movie and frightened investors did not wait for the closing credits to sell. The next day, IBM and Datadog dropped double‑digits, DoorDash, Visa, Mastercard, ServiceNow and Blackstone—called out by name—sold off and a major software ETF fell nearly 5%.

Bloomberg’s Matt Levine calls this the “AI scare trade.” Tongue‑in‑cheek, he sketches an AI lab “business plan:” 1) build a disruptive AI tool; 2) bet on a price decline for the target sector; 3) announce the tool and 4) profit from the selloff. In today’s jittery market, he argues, step one—actually building the technology—might be the least important. A press release or CNBC appearance where you solemnly say “DoorDash. AI.” with a grim nod might be enough to wipe billions from a sector’s market capitalization.

That kind of “shadow trading” would almost certainly be illegal, but that anxiety has already hit software, cybersecurity, payment processors, wealth managers and commercial real‑estate brokers after announcements of new AI “tools.”

Should investors take Citrini’s memo as a roadmap—or a Rorschach test?

History suggests we consistently underestimated the economy’s ability to create new categories of jobs when automation displaces old ones. Commenting on the fallout from the Citrini memo, The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman notes in “Robots Have Been About to Take All the Jobs for 100 Years” that we have been here before—over and over. In 1928, The New York Times worried the “march of the machine” would make farm hands idle; in 1940, it fretted about “technological unemployment”; in 1980, a headline warned, “A Robot Is After Your Job.”

In each case, the economy adapted—even if the adjustment was painful in specific industries and communities.

In his memo “AI Hurtles Ahead,” Oaktree Capital Management Co-Chair Howard Marks stakes out a more uncomfortable middle ground. No tech Luddite, Marks finds the speed at which AI is growing in capability and usage—far outpacing past technological innovations—genuinely unnerving. Marks quotes AI leaders who casually suggest AI could wipe out half of all white‑collar tasks in a handful of years. What troubles him is not just the claim—but the absence of a clear answer about where comparable replacement jobs will emerge.

For Marks, the risk is less about the future state and more about the transition: how communities, households and capital structures handle a shock in which AI can throw people out of work faster than they can be retrained, relocated or reabsorbed. He likens it to offshoring and automation in manufacturing—great for global productivity, brutal for many towns that never fully recovered.

So, where does that leave the long‑term investor trying to navigate between AI utopia and AI doom?

First, be wary of both narratives that say “AI changes nothing” and ones that say “AI changes everything, immediately.” Investor anxiety over AI is now pervasive: entire sectors have seen sharp, sometimes indiscriminate selloffs on thin catalysts. That creates opportunities on both sides. Some businesses really do sell expensive, standardized information work that AI can replicate. Others have durable protective “moats” in brand, regulation, physical assets or deeply human service.

Second, companies powering the AI infrastructure build-out—semiconductors, data centers and energy—what Marks might call the “picks and shovels” of AI—may have a clearer line of sight into sustainable demand and “adequate” profitability than so-called hyperscalers. For companies like Microsoft, Amazon and Google, AI is only one part of an already vast profit engine. Investments in pure-play AI labs such as OpenAi and Anthropic are highly speculative, as the long-term economics are very much unknown.

Citrini’s scenario is intentionally extreme, but dismiss it at your own peril. The market’s hair‑trigger reaction—and the willingness of CEOs like Dorsey to wield AI as a reason to reset their cost structures—show us the stakes are real. As investors and citizens, we should neither smash the knitting machines nor worship them. We should resist embracing AI utopia or surrendering to an AI doom loop. In short, we must not let either AI hype or hysteria do our thinking for us.

Mickey Kim is the chief operating officer and chief compliance officer for Columbus-based investment adviser Kirr Marbach & Co. Kim also writes for the Indianapolis Business Journal. He can be reached at 812-376-9444 or mickey@kirrmar.com.

CPAC activists embrace Paxton as MAGA’s choice for Texas Senate over Cornyn

By

The Associated Press

-

March 28, 2026

GRAPEVINE, Texas (AP) — It was Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s show at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where hundreds of right-wing activists from around the country hailed him as Republicans’ clear choice for U.S. Senate.

After meeting with supporters behind closed doors, Paxton crowned the day by standing before thousands as the keynote speaker at the Ronald Reagan dinner.

Paxton thanked them for sticking by his side after he was impeached — but acquitted — for corruption charges by the Legislature four years ago.

“I want you to know, there’s only one reason I got through all that, and it’s by the grace of God,” he said Friday night as a wave of applause rolled through the hall. “He absolutely delivered me, and he used to people of Texas to deliver me.”

If Paxton is going to win the Republican nomination, it will be because of support in rooms like this one. He is in a bitter runoff with Sen. John Cornyn after neither won enough votes in the March 3 primary. Although Cornyn has raised far more money and is backed by the party establishment in Washington, Paxton’s well-honed survival skills and rock-solid foundation with the local Republican base could see him through the May 26 election.

President Donald Trump promised that he would endorse either Paxton or Cornyn weeks ago, but no announcement ever came. Paxton, however, has had no trouble proving his bona fides with the party’s right wing.

While Cornyn did not attend CPAC, which was held at a resort and convention center near Dallas, Paxton was extolled by speakers throughout the day.

“Ken Paxton is emblematic of the grassroots of the MAGA movement across the nation,” Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser who hosts the “War Room” podcast, said referring to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan that originated in his 2016 campaign.

Earlier Friday, CPAC senior fellow Mercedes Schlapp polled the crowd. Asking for a show of support for Paxton, there was a roar of cheers. When she asked about Cornyn, there was a light ripple of boos.

Cornyn finished first in the primary, which also featured U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt. There were briefly concerns among Paxton’s supporters that Trump would back the incumbent. That would have come as a relief to party leaders, who view Cornyn as stronger candidate against Democratic nominee James Talarico.

But Paxton appealed to Trump by embracing legislation known as the SAVE Act, which would mean new, strict proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting. The proposal is a priority for Trump, but it has stalled in the Senate because Republican leaders do not want to lift the filibuster.

Joe Ropar, a 72-year-old defense contractor who attended CPAC, said Paxton’s move was “brilliant.” Although Cornyn later said he was willing to change filibuster rules, Ropar believed Paxton had demonstrated stronger loyalty to Trump.

“Cornyn’s trying to change his stripes now,” Ropar said. “It’s too little too late.”

Paxton has another political connection with Trump: They both have portrayed themselves as the victims of political persecution. While Paxton was impeached and acquitted once, Trump went through the process twice during his first term.

James Schaare, a 61-year-old church music leader from Euless, Texas, said that perseverance shows Paxton is the right choice.

“In Paxton’s career, he’s been faithful to what he’s said he’s going to do,” he said.

Some conservative Republicans hold other grudges against Cornyn. They remember his early criticism of Trump’s proposal for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border in 2016, his co-sponsoring of gun control legislation after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, in 2022, and his dismissive remarks about Trump’s comeback campaign in 2024.

Retired music teacher Valerie Burge, 58, said she voted for Cornyn in the primary because of his long service.

“But I’m not sure about the runoff,” she said. “It might be time for something new.”

Barbara Palmer, a 65-year-old lawyer, said Cornyn had simply been in office for too long. He has been a judge, state supreme court justice and state attorney general, and now he wants a fifth term as senator.

“It’s just time for a change,” Palmer said.

US lawmakers say they’ll visit Taiwan before Trump’s summit with China’s Xi

By

The Associated Press

-

March 28, 2026

WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan group of four senators has plans to visit Taiwan, Japan and South Korea in the coming days on a trip meant to bolster U.S. alliances seen as important to countering China’s dominance in Asia.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced the trip Saturday. She will be joined by Sens. John Curtis, R-Utah, Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Jacky Rosen, D-Nev. Their visits to Taipei, Tokyo and Seoul are coming before President Donald Trump’s trip to Beijing in May for a rescheduled summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The lawmakers’ stop in Taiwan could draw scrutiny from China, which opposes such relations and sees them as a challenge to its claim of sovereignty over the self-governing island. Taiwan relies on American backing for its democracy, but recent moves by Trump, such as discussing a potential weapons sales to Taiwan with Xi, have raised questions about the future direction of U.S. policy.

Analysts in both China and the United States believe Xi, through the leader-level summit, will try to influence Trump to soften the U.S. stance on Taiwan.

“This bipartisan delegation demonstrates Congress’ commitment to these alliances and partnerships is unwavering and will endure well beyond any one administration,” Shaheen said in a statement.

In a show of reassurance to the Asian allies, the lawmakers plan to meet with political leaders and defense officials on their trip.

“Our alliance with Taiwan is one of the most strategically and morally significant partnerships America has in the Indo-Pacific,” Curtis said.

It remains to be seen how Trump’s intervention in Venezuela, Iran and elsewhere could influence other powers such as China and Russia. But there is some concern among lawmakers that the Republican president’s actions could be seen as giving those countries an opening for their own foreign moves.

The economic relationship with Taiwan has also come under scrutiny from the Trump administration. The U.S. is reliant on Taiwan for its production of computer chips, which contributed to a trade imbalance of nearly $127 billion during the first 11 months of 2025.

The Trump administration reached a deal with Taiwan in February that removed 99% of its trade barriers.

During another visit by a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers last year, they emphasized that the U.S. would continue to partner closely with Taiwan.

___

Associated Press writer Didi Tang contributed to this report.

Bills to pay FAA and TSA workers during shutdowns get introduced but keep stalling in Congress

By

The Associated Press

-

March 28, 2026

The Aviation Funding Solvency Act. The Keep America Flying Act. The Keep Air Travel Safe Act. The Aviation Funding Stability Act.

Again and again, members of Congress have dusted off the same idea: ensuring the federal employees who control air traffic and screen passengers and bags at U.S. airports get paid during government shutdowns.

Bills to make it happen keep getting introduced in one form or another, sometimes with Democrats and Republicans as co-sponsors. Yet session after session, the result has been the same — agencies receive their annual appropriations, public outrage over long security lines and flight delays fades, legislation languishes and workers have no guarantees their paychecks won’t stop coming again.

“Once the crisis is over, people assume that the good times are back,” said Eric Chaffee, a Case Western Reserve law professor whose research includes risk management in the aviation industry. “It’s easy to pass the next big bill when you’re still in the throes of the financial crisis, but once the shutdown is done, people have a relatively short memory of the problems that it created.”

Since 2019, after a partial shutdown that spanned the holiday travel season, lawmakers have drafted, revised and reintroduced multiple proposals to pay aviation workers who would have to keep reporting for duty in the event of another budget impasse.

The Aviation Funding Stability Act of 2019 — and 2021 and 2025 — and the bipartisan Aviation Funding Solvency Act introduced after a government shutdown last fall would protect the pay of air traffic controllers. The Keep Air Travel Safe Act, filed in October, extended the protection to Transportation Security Administration agents. The Keep America Flying Act, also from October, would cover both TSA personnel and certain Federal Aviation Administration employees.

Broader proposals, like the Shutdown Fairness Act introduced in January, would maintain the pay of essential federal workers across the U.S. government. Those bills have stalled as well.

“Congress cares about headlines, and as a result of that, it means they don’t always make changes that would be really beneficial,” Chaffee said.

Political gridlock

Shutdowns that disrupt air travel have continued along with the push for aviation-specific pay protections. The 35-day shutdown that arose over funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border during President Donald Trump’s first term resulted in delays at East Coast airports and prolonged wait times at some airports as air traffic controllers and TSA agents went unpaid.

Last fall’s 43-day shutdown broke the record for the longest funding lapse and revived concerns over the consequences of requiring air traffic controllers to work without pay. The FAA, citing risks to aviation safety, took the extraordinary step of ordering U.S. airlines to cut flights at 40 of the nation’s busiest airports as unscheduled absences deepened existing staffing shortages at air traffic control facilities.

TSA officers who worked through that shutdown also found themselves working through a short one that started on Jan. 31 and yet another when funding for only the Department of Homeland Security lapsed on Feb. 14. Thousands began missing shifts each day as the stalemate entered its second month.

Carlos Rodriguez, a TSA agent and local union leader in New York, said many workers had not recovered financially from last year’s shutdown when this one hit.

“Part of the American dream that I was sold was that working for the government was honorable and stable,” Rodriguez, a second generation Dominican American, said. “But this is not honorable or stable.”

On Friday, the 42nd day of the DHS shutdown, Trump signed an emergency order instructing Homeland Security to pay TSA agents immediately. The action came after House Republicans defeated a Senate deal that would have funded the TSA, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Emergency Management Agency but not Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol. The House later in the night passed its own bill to fund the entire Homeland Security department through May 22, but senators had already left town.

Johnny Jones, secretary-treasurer of the TSA division of the American Federation of Government Employees, said union members resent having their livelihoods used as tools and talking points in a game of political brinkmanship.

To them, the machinations of Congress feel like “let’s checkmate the queen with the TSA pawn here, and then we’ll smash them over whenever we feel like it,” Jones said. “We’re on the chess board.”

Public pressure builds

Labor unions, airline leaders and airport executives have issued open letters, taken out newspaper ads and made direct appeals to urge lawmakers to act on at least one of the existing bipartisan proposals for paying government workers who are essential to the aviation and travel industries.

“Congress has the power to end this dysfunction once and for all, and must use any legislative vehicle to accomplish this goal,” the Modern Skies Coalition said in a joint statement this week. The broad coalition of more than 60 organizations pointed to the Aviation Funding Solvency Act, Aviation Funding Stability Act and Keep America Flying Act as potential options.

The president and CEO of Airlines for America, a trade group representing major U.S. airlines, made a similar case in a Washington Times op-ed this week, writing that Congress “must get to the table immediately” and pass legislation that would prevent more scenes of frustrated passengers, overflowing airport terminals and donation drives for public servants.

“Right now, lawmakers are sitting on their hands doing nothing with three viable, bipartisan bills that could prevent this mess,” wrote Chris Sununu, a former New Hampshire governor hired to lead the trade group last year.

The American Federation of Government Employees joined more than 30 unions this week in urging Congress to pass the Shutdown Fairness Act, warning that funding lapses undermined employee morale, recruitment and retention.

Breaking the cycle

Some TSA workers have reported sleeping in their cars or thinking about selling them to make rent. Union leaders have described workers not being able to fill their refrigerators or gas tanks.

Caleb Harmon-Marshall, a former TSA officer who runs a travel newsletter called Gate Access, said the officers he’s spoken with are eager to receive all of their back pay quickly because they are struggling to pay their bills and accumulating debt. But without greater certainty, more officers may miss shifts or decide to quit, he said.

If the president’s emergency order only funds a single pay period, “that’s not enough to bring them back,” Harmon-Marshall said. “It has to be an extended pay for them to come back or want to stay there.”

Previous legislation with bipartisan backing struggled to make it across the finish line. The Aviation Funding Act of 2019 that was introduced by Sen. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, had 13 co-sponsors, eight of them Democrats. It never made it out of committee. A House version introduced by Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio eventually had 303 co-sponsors and cleared the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee but never received a floor vote.

The current political environment in the U.S. may consign the legislation in Congress now to the same fate, Chaffee said.

“We live in a society currently where things are very polarized,” he said. “Whether or not any of these bills get passed, it will need to have political momentum behind it, meaning it will need to be something that the public really wants to see happen.”

Editorial: Democrats need a better affordability agenda

By

Staff Reports

-

March 28, 2026

As midterm elections approach in November, voters have one thing on their minds: Life is too expensive. Democrats are wise to campaign on “affordability.” Unfortunately, many of their ideas are likely to make matters worse.

Most poll respondents now rank some variant of “high prices” as their top concern, with good reason. Inflation, though down from pandemic-era highs, has stubbornly exceeded the Federal Reserve’s 2% target for five straight years. In certain subcategories — groceries, health care, housing — voters report acute distress.

Democrats have responded with a bevy of modish but misguided ideas: Cap prices, freeze rents, subsidize demand, blame the rich. Such populism may prove satisfying in the short term but won’t do much to counteract inflation; in many cases, it’s likely to worsen it. Better to advance an affordability agenda that is both popular and right on the merits.

Start with tariffs. Last year, the average rate on imports rose to 13% from 2.6%, with nearly 90% of the burden falling on Americans: a tax of $1,000 per household. Although the Supreme Court invalidated some of the duties in February, the White House hopes to quickly replace them. Democrats should commit to scrapping these taxes, which not only raise consumer prices but also slow growth, stifle competition and invite retaliation.

On health care, the party’s top priority is boosting Obamacare subsidies. That may hearten beneficiaries but won’t rein in prices. A plausible cost-control agenda should also be on offer: Embrace “site-neutral” reimbursement rates; consider tax-advantaged savings accounts; expand consumer choice, including a public option; embark on an all-points effort to improve price transparency. In short: Support competition over blandishments.

A similar story prevails with housing. Subsidizing mortgages or capping rents won’t broadly improve affordability. Nor will demonizing investors and landlords. Instead, focus on expanding supply: Tie federal funds to zoning reform, ease land-use rules, streamline environmental reviews, ditch senseless restrictions on manufactured housing, and otherwise encourage building where people want to live.

A final priority should be restraining government debt, which is on track to exceed 120% of gross domestic product by next decade. Such profligacy slows real income growth, deters hiring, discourages innovation and drives up interest rates. An unlikely theme for an election year? Perhaps. But large majorities are worried about the issue; candidates ignore it at their peril. Supporting a fiscal commission would be a good place to start.

Plenty of other productive ideas are available. Embrace permitting reform to reduce building costs and bolster green energy. Scrap union-labor requirements, which boost construction prices. Roll back domestic-content rules that waste tax dollars. Repeal the benighted Jones Act, which raises energy and shipping costs. Abolish occupational-licensing rules that restrict services supply and punish consumers. End biofuel mandates, which harm the environment and inflate grocery bills. And more.

When voters worry about their wallets, incumbents usually get the blame. Democrats are right to capitalize on this advantage. Just be careful: Populist policies that sound good today could be a terrible burden in two short years.

Column: Some politicians must have been ‘born in a barn’

By

Staff Reports

-

March 28, 2026

Decency matters.

After decorated U.S. Marine veteran and former FBI Director Robert Mueller died, two former presidents of the United States under whom Mueller served issued statements.

Republican George W. Bush said:

“Laura and I are deeply saddened by the loss of Robert Mueller. Bob dedicated his life to public service. As a Marine in Vietnam, he proved he was ready for tough assignments. He earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart before returning home to pursue law. In 2001, only one week into the job as the 6th Director of the FBI, Bob transitioned the agency mission to protecting the homeland after Sept. 11. He led it effectively, helping prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Laura and I send our heartfelt sympathy to his wife of nearly 60 years, Ann, and the Mueller family.”

Democrat Barack Obama said:

“Bob Mueller was one of the finest directors in the history of the FBI, transforming the bureau after 9/11 and saving countless lives. But it was his relentless commitment to the rule of law and his unwavering belief in our bedrock values that made him one of the most respected public servants of our time. Michelle and I send our condolences to Bob’s family, and everyone who knew and admired him.”

Both statements are what one would expect not just from a person who has led a nation, but also from any caring and, yes, decent human being. Their messages were dignified and compassionate, designed not just to pay tribute to a fallen patriot but also to offer solace and comfort to those who loved Mueller and mourn his passing.

The current occupant of the White House, Republican Donald Trump, couldn’t bring himself to rise to meet that standard of conduct. He said:

“Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!”

Then—as if there were any doubt that he and only he would say something so callous and offensive—he attached his name to the post, as is his wont, in all caps.

“President DONALD J. TRUMP”

My late grandfather, a lifelong Republican, had a phrase he relied on when someone committed a breach of decorum or basic good manners.

“He must have been born in a barn,” Grandpa would mutter.

I know Trump nurses grievances, real or imagined, the way the most devoted mother on earth tends to a sickly newborn.

When Mueller served as special counsel investigating the ties Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign had with Russia, he found his way onto the president’s enemies list.

The fact that Mueller didn’t ask for the job—that, in fact, Trump’s then attorney general, Jeff Sessions, chose him because Mueller was considered a Republican—never factored into the president’s thinking.

This president always has operated on a binary system. Anyone who doesn’t agree with him on everything is an enemy and must be treated as such.

Even in death.

But Trump’s either-for-me-or-against-me approach blinds both him and his followers to some truths that are obvious to others.

I’ve read Mueller’s report on the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

Twice, in fact.

The president claims the report shows those ties to be a hoax. That’s not the case.

What Mueller’s investigation revealed was a candidate and a campaign so easily manipulated that they ended up serving Russia’s interests. They didn’t seek out Russia’s help, but they sure didn’t reject it when it was offered.

Furthermore, it was only because of Mueller’s scrupulous adherence to a Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president that Trump didn’t face criminal prosecution.

In other words, it was only because Bob Mueller was a stickler for the rules that Trump wasn’t facing jail time in his first term.

Mueller—whether he wanted to or not—saved Trump from himself because Mueller thought both honor and duty required him to do so.

Donald Trump never could grasp, much less understand a mindset such as Mueller’s.

The president sees rules and laws as obstacles, not stars to guide him. He feels the same about decency and truth.

That’s why Trump not only could not offer the expected words of condolence to the family of a fallen warrior, but he also did not have the grace or discipline to remain silent.

As my grandfather would have said, he must have been born in a barn.

John Krull is director of Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism and publisher of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students. The views expressed are those of the author only and should not be attributed to Franklin College. Send comments to editorial@therepublic.com.

Preparing to redistrict: BCSC to host Maple Grove Elementary info sessions

By

Brad Davis

-

March 28, 2026

Bartholomew Consolidated School Corp. will host three separate information sessions in April where district leaders will share information regarding the upcoming redistricting from the addition of the school corporation’s newest elementary school, Maple Grove.

The sessions take place at Columbus East High School on Tuesday, April 7; at Columbus North High School on Thursday, April 9; and Westside Community Church on Tuesday, April 21. All three will get started at 6:30 p.m.

Community members may attend any of the sessions, but for those who can’t make it, BCSC will post a recording on its website of one of the three.

Maple Grove is the school corporation’s 12th elementary school and the first since Clifty Creek in 1982. It will cost an estimated $60 million and is to accommodate the city’s continued expansion to the west and south. The project is part of the district’s broader Envision 2030 facilities plan.

The design prioritizes student connection, safety and everything that comes with educating young people in the 21st century and reflects the importance of STEM education in the district, school officials said.

BCSC officials have said the new school will free-up space in the other 11 elementary schools for high-quality STEM instruction and flexible learning areas. This includes student common spaces and wellness support centers, as well as locations for specialized staff such as occupational, physical and speech therapists.

Information sessions

While BCSC won’t be showing any new boundary maps at the sessions, district officials will talk about the process they’re going through in order to redistrict.

There will also be a written question and answer portion, some of which will go on an a frequently asked questions section on the district’s website.

BCSC officials will share information about current school boundaries, school enrollment trends, anticipated timelines and the district’s wider priorities when going through the process.

For example, there is a gap of 550 students between the district’s largest and smallest elementary schools, and a 40% difference in the free and reduced meal rates between the schools with the highest and lowest free and reduced meal rates, Director of Technology Innovation Nick Williams said.

Redistricting will look in part to more evenly distribute those figures.

“I think it’s important for the district to hold these sessions to get the process in front of all our stakeholders so they understand how and why we’re doing certain things,” Williams said. “But it’s also important to get people interested and involved not only in knowing how we’re doing this, but also asking questions so we can have the best possible process.”

Some other priorities include ensuring programming in each school remains the same, balancing for future growth, preserving neighborhoods and cutting down on those that are split, keeping the current grade configurations and optimizing bus routes.

The actual maps will be finalized sometime in the late-fall to winter range. There will be other information sessions held when the new maps are finished.

The BCSC school board would then consider finalizing the new maps in the spring of 2027, in time for the opening of the school during the 2027-2028 school year the following August.

Elementary and middle school boundaries that will change will go into effect in August 2027. High school boundaries won’t change until August 2028 because it will be past the class scheduling process for students by the time the school board takes action, BCSC officials said.

BCSC’s Districting and Facilities Committee is having a hand in the boundary-change recommendation, made up of a comprehensive group including school board members Rich Stenner, District 2, and Tom Glick, District 5, as well as representatives from the Columbus Educator’s Association (CEA), Columbus Regional Health, Columbus Municipal Airport, Cummins and the city/county planning department, among others.

The process of redistricting has been going on ever since Envision 2030 bonds were first issued in December 2023.

Maple Grove will be staffed by a redistribution of other BCSC teachers, plus some new teachers, although many of the other elementary schools will receive new teachers to fill the gap created by the redistribution.

Maple Grove progress

Pepper Construction, the contractor on the project, started work on the school last year and the structure of the building is already coming together.

Drone footage shows the petal design of Maple Grove is coming into recognizable form.

Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations Brett Boezeman said that Pepper has been able to get much of the steel structure of the school up quickly and that the timeline is going according to plan.

Steel setting will be finished by the middle of April, completing the general layout and scope of the building.

BCSC officials will look at a mock-up of precast for the school next week. The precast walls are being formed in Ohio and will arrive on trucks at the end of April, with the exterior footprint of the building well defined by the end of May.

Pepper Construction for the past couple of months has involved working on some of the underlying infrastructure including underground piping and will start building-out curbs in a couple of weeks, Boezeman said.

Höweler + Yoon, a Boston-based firm, designed Maple Grove, paid for through the Cummins Architecture program.

The petal design of the school allows each classroom access to daylight and views of the woods and the gently sloping site. Four of the petals contain classrooms, and face south towards the existing tree line. One petal, facing north, contains the administrative wing and the remaining petals house the gym and cafeteria.

The petal configuration accentuates the natural elements on site, and is centered by a “town square” which will be home to a communal space known as the Discovery Center.

The ground-floor is mostly comprised with rooms for specials, STEM education and makerspaces, with the second-level for classrooms. Classrooms will be divided in color-coded neighborhoods, each with their own common area, accessed through a grand stairway with a cat-walk bridge to get across.

The neighborhoods make up the petals which branch out from the Discovery Center. Höweler described this part of the design as being “from the inside out,” beginning with a focus on the classrooms and ending with the exterior appearance and its materials.

Regarding safety and security, there are two ways out of every classroom and shared cubby rooms to provide concealed spaces for shelter in place scenarios. The building will also be able to be compartmentalized in emergency situations so classroom neighborhoods can be individually secured. The design offers a wide-variety of sight lines as well, enabling students and staff the ability to have a clear sense of their surroundings.

Outside of Maple Grove is parking on the northern side with dedicated spots for busses, carpool and drop off. To the south and west are the trees where there will be walking paths for students, an outside nature-amphitheater and a playground and playfield.

1 of 10

UFC brings cage-match bout to the White House, home of a president who favors cage-match politics

By

The Associated Press

-

March 28, 2026

WASHINGTON (AP) — Cage-match fighting is coming to the White House to fete President Donald Trump, a proud proponent of cage-match politics.

In the coming weeks, crews will erect a 6-foot wire-mesh fence shaped into an octagon on the lawn, where UFC fighters will use a combination of kickboxing, jiujitsu, wrestling and other martial arts in a June 14 mixed martial arts show timed for Trump’s 80th birthday and as part of the nation’s 250th anniversary.

The celebration of bloody, brute force dovetails with Trump’s gleefully combative charisma and extreme ideological masculinity — a brawling, no-holds-barred approach to the highest office in the land.

“I have respect for fighters, you know, when you can take 200 shots to the face and then look forward to the second round,” Trump told podcaster Logan Paul as he campaigned for his second term.

Trump was the first sitting president to attend a UFC show, taking in a 2019 fight that was stopped because of a cut over the loser’s eye that left blood pouring down the fighter’s face.

To the uninitiated, the sport celebrates violence. It is wildly popular with young men.

“A lot of people don’t understand fighting and they think fighting is about anger. It’s not. If you’re angry when you fight, you’ll lose,” said veteran MMA referee and commentator “Big John” McCarthy.

“Fighting is about technique and style, and understanding how to make your opponent make mistakes while you don’t,” McCarthy said.

“I totally understand why he likes it,” he added of Trump. “Because I do.”

Friends with UFC and broadcast executives

It is hard to find a phrase more Trumpian than Ultimate Fighting Championship.

A committed devotee of hyperbole, Trump relishes grand descriptors that can elevate anything to its “ultimate” version. He also proudly fancies himself a fighter: “Fight! Fight! Fight!” became his 2024 campaign mantra, one crystalized after an assassination attempt that summer.

Then there is “championship,” another thing close to the heart of a president who constantly professes love for winning and those who do it frequently.

All of that means Trump giving UFC its largest-ever platform “is calculated. He knows what he’s doing,” said Kyle Kusz, a University of Rhode Island professor who studies the connection between sports and the far right.

Trump “uses UFC to portray himself as a manly sportsman,” said Kusz, who said he sees parallels between the sport’s style of masculinity and Trump’s approach to policy and politics.

The league is planning to issue 85,000 free tickets for the event. Trump said UFC boss Dana White, a longtime friend, will build “a 5,000-seat arena right outside the front door of the White House” and eight large screens in a nearby park for ticket-holders to watch from afar.

The show falls on a Sunday, deviating from UFC’s usual Saturday night time slot, and will be carried live on Paramount+, which is controlled by the Ellison family, also close allies of Trump. France even pushed back the Group of Seven summit it is hosting so as not to conflict with Trump’s birthday festivities.

Criticism of White House fight card

Trump has boasted that the event will feature “all top guys.” But fans online have panned the card for lacking top talent such as former two-division champion Jon Jones, who requested his release from the UFC immediately after being excluded from the White House show. Also absent is MMA icon Conor McGregor, whose first bout since 2021 would have been a seismic moment for the sport. The UFC’s White “knows the White House card sucks,” said former champion Ronda Rousey, who is mounting her own MMA comeback outside the UFC because she says the promotion would not meet her financial expectations.

Rousey, who is close to White, says the White House show “fell extremely short of expectations.”

While still being finalized, the card features two championship fights. Brazil’s Alex Periera will meet France’s Ciryl Gane for the interim UFC heavyweight title. Then Spanish-Georgian lightweight champion Ilia Topuria takes on interim champ Justin Gaethje, one of just two Americans who currently hold even a share of the UFC’s 11 championship belts.

The White House did not answer questions about criticism of the card or the event’s aggressive politics. Instead, communications director Steven Cheung, said, “This will be one of the greatest and most historic sports events in history.”

Cheung, a UFC spokesman before joining Trump’s 2016 campaign, called Trump’s event “a testament to his vision to celebrate America’s monumental 250th anniversary.”

A UFC spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump helped reinforce UFC’s mass appeal

Once famously derided as “human cockfighting” by late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., UFC has been a major sports league in the United States since signing a media-rights deal with ESPN in 2018, said Patrick Wyman, a historian and host of popular podcasts on the subject who is also a former longtime MMA journalist.

Trump, a fixture at heavyweight boxing matches in the 1980s, gave UFC a boost a generation ago by hosting early bouts, including 2001’s “Battle on the Boardwalk,” at his casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Wyman said that even as Trump and White have remained close, UFC has deliberately prioritized building the league’s brand over that of its individual fighters. That has kept most stars from achieving crossover appeal.

As a result, Wyman said UFC remains most popular with men in their mid-40s to early 60s — a demographic already inclined to be Trump supporters.

“I think it’s a pretty perfect encapsulation of the way that Donald Trump thinks about politics,” Wyman said of the White House event, citing its “transactional nature” and “how impossible it is to draw firm lines between business and politics.”

In 2014, Trump invested in his own, short-lived MMA league. A decade later, his reelection campaign enhanced his UFC ties, seeking to reach voters who do not usually engage in traditional politics.

Two days after he was convicted on 34 felony counts in a hush money case in June 2024, Trump went to a UFC bout in New Jersey, strolling out into the crowd with White while Kid Rock’s “American Bad Ass” blared. Trump’s campaign used footage of the raucous ovation to help launch its TikTok account.

Then, after his election victory, Trump triumphantly appeared with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and a large political entourage at a UFC fight in New York. He also attended UFC bouts in Newark and Miami last year.

Trump, who has built a large portion of his domestic travel around sporting events, is not unique among presidents using sports to appeal to voters.

Republican George W. Bush zinging a pitch in from Yankee Stadium’s mound during the 2001 World Series is remembered as a moment of resilience after the Sept. 11 attacks. Republican Richard Nixon so publicly embraced his football fandom that aides worried it might alienate some voters, said Chris Cillizza, author of “Power Players: Sports, Politics, and the American Presidency.”

Such worries are gone today, though, since sports “now tends to self-select by political affiliation,” he said.

“In an era where people feel like politicians are mostly weirdo aliens,” Cillizza said “sports — playing them, having knowledge about them — represents one of the best ways to prove to voters you are actually a human being.”

__

Associated Press writers Greg Beacham in Los Angeles and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

How the Homeland Security deal unraveled and split Republican leaders in Congress

By

The Associated Press

-

March 28, 2026

WASHINGTON (AP) — For several hours Friday, in the stillness before dawn, the Senate appeared to have finally figured out how to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security before it faced the longest partial shutdown in U.S. history.

Senators handed House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., their deal and headed for the airports, seemingly confident of success.

Then it collapsed. Spectacularly.

An incensed Johnson marched out of his office Friday afternoon. He angrily rebuked the plan that the Senate had unanimously agreed to as a “joke.”

“I have to protect the House, and I have to protect the American people,” Johnson told reporters.

It was a dramatic denunciation of a deal that his counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., had negotiated after weeks of effort, and was the latest abrupt turn in a funding saga that has bedeviled top Republicans for much of the year.

The collapse of the deal leaves Congress, now on a two-week spring break, with no easy way out of the impasse that has put DHS into a shutdown since mid-February. It also has exposed a rare rupture between the two Republican leaders in Congress, testing their alliances as they labor to move another set of President Donald Trump’s priorities into law before the November elections.

Nothing ahead is likely to be easy.

How the deal collapsed

Thune had a deal with Democratic senators after negotiating for weeks on their demands for new restrictions on the department’s immigration enforcement work. Offers were traded several times. The talks moved along at a stop-start pace. Votes failed again and again.

Out of time and patience, senators essentially settled on a draw for the bill: They would not include funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE and for U.S. Border Patrol, while setting aside all the Democratic demands for new limits on the agencies.

Thune pointed out that Congress had allotted money for immigration enforcement and he told reporters that “we can get at least a lot of the government opened up again and then we’ll go from there.”

Asked if he had cleared the compromise with Johnson, Thune said the two had texted.

“I don’t know what the House will do,” the senator said early Friday as the deal came together.

But as House Republicans woke up to the news, their outrage was swift.

Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., said that on a GOP conference call that morning to discuss their path forward, a few dozen members ranging from moderates to hard-line conservatives spoke in opposition to what the Senate had done.

“The Senate chickened out,” he said. “The cowards there, only a few of them in the middle of the night with I think only three to five senators present on the floor, chickened out because they wanted to go home for two weeks. We need to raise the bar.”

What’s next for Republicans?

The bitter split threatens to make the job for Republican leaders more difficult as they try to advance their priorities while they still have guaranteed control of both chambers. Trump has said that legislation to impose strict new proof of citizenship requirements on voting is his top priority, but there is no real path for that plan in the Senate with its 60-vote threshold for advancing legislation.

Some Republicans have pushed instead for a budget package that could potentially put some parts of the voter ID law in place. Republicans are also contemplating how to pass an expected request from the White House to fund the war with Iran that could total more than $200 billion, among other priorities.

Meanwhile, the flop of the funding deal has given Democrats another chance to pin the partial shutdown on House Republicans.

“They know this is a continuation of the shutdown because the Senate is gone,” said Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, the No. 2 Democratic leader. “So they know fully well what they’re doing.”

It is not clear what the Senate will do next. A quick resumption of talks is unlikely. Negotiations ended acrimoniously on both sides, with each blaming the other for moving the goalposts along the way.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said he was proud of his caucus for “holding the line.” But Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who leads the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Democrats were “intransigent and unreasonable.”

Thune said he believed that Democrats never wanted a deal and would not vote for ICE funding under any circumstances.

“I felt like from the beginning, they just didn’t want to get to ‘yes,’” Thune said after the vote.

The dynamic left senators convinced that the deal was the only way to move past their disagreements and reopen DHS.

But House Republicans on Friday night seemed to revel in the fact they had defied the wishes of the Senate. GOP members said that they work from a perspective that is closer to the will of their constituents.

To Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., the Senate’s proposal was “nothing more than unconditional surrender masquerading as a solution.” She said the House ”will not bend itself into submission by acquiescing.”

Those searching for a way out of the shutdown seemed discouraged.

“This takes two chambers to get the job done,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a moderate Republican. “Apparently, there’s not enough communication between those chambers.”

___

Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.