Prince Frederik of Luxembourg, the youngest son of Prince Robert of Luxembourg and Princess Julie of Nassau, died in Paris at age 22 on March 1—a day after Rare Disease Day—of a rare genetic disease known as POLG. His father announced his passing on March 7 in a statement posted on the website of the POLG Foundation, which Frederik cofounded in 2022 and was the creative director of. “Frederik fought his disease valiantly until the very end,” Robert wrote. “His indomitable lust for life propelled him through the hardest of physical and mental challenges.” Advertisement Frederik—who is survived by his parents; his brother, Alexander; his sister, Charlotte; his cousins, Charly, Louis, and Donall; his brother-in-law, Mansour; his aunt and uncle, Charlotte and Mark; and his dog, Mushu—was remembered as a resilient fighter and a headstrong advocate. “Frederik knows that he is my Superhero,” Robert wrote. “Part of his superpower was his ability to inspire and to lead by example.” He even expressed gratitude for having his disease, Robert wrote. “He felt that there were so many amazing people that he would never have known had it not been for his disease,” and once told a friend, “‘Even though I’ll die from it … and even if my parents do not have the time to save me, I know that they will be able to save other children.’” What is POLG? POLG disease is a mitochondrial disorder caused by inherited mutations in the POLG gene—which is critical to the processes of replicating cells’ genetic material and DNA repair. The disease, which has no cure, affects multiple organs, including the brain, nerves, muscles, and liver, and symptoms can be wide-ranging and debilitating. “One might compare it to having a faulty battery that never fully recharges, is in a constant state of depletion and eventually loses power,” Robert wrote. It’s also difficult to diagnose. While it’s one of the most common inherited mitochondrial diseases, affecting around 1 in 10,000 people, it’s considered a rare disease. Molecular genetic testing for the mutation exists, and the disease can also be detected through brain imaging to look for associated brain changes and electroencephalogram (EEG) testing, but the range in symptoms and lack of public awareness around the disease means it can be hard for even physicians to identify. Frederik was diagnosed at age 14. Doug Turnbull, a professor of neurology at Newcastle University and a member of the POLG Foundation’s scientific advisory board, described POLG deficiency as “the worst” of all mitochondrial diseases. “It is so relentlessly progressive, attacking so many different systems with sadly the same conclusion.” The disease can impact vision, mobility, and speech, and it can be deadly—life expectancy ranges from three months to 12 years from the onset of the disease.

Afriend called recently asking about measles. She’s the mother of four very young kids and wanted to know if she should be worried. She’d heard about the large measles outbreak in northwest Texas. Since January, more than 159 people are known to have been infected, and the outbreak has resulted in two deaths and dozens of hospitalizations. Now, this measles outbreak has spread into nine other states, and there’s an alert to travelers passing through the Los Angeles Airport. Advertisement Contrary to statements by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., outbreaks of this deadly disease are highly unusual. The U.S. declared measles eliminated more than 20 years ago, thanks to an exceptionally safe and effective vaccine. But efforts to undermine confidence in that vaccine have contributed to these recent outbreaks. There are things we can do, individually and collectively, to protect our most vulnerable and hopefully eliminate measles in this country again. My friend understands the settled evidence behind the safety and efficacy of vaccines. She’s following the vaccine schedule her pediatrician recommended. Measles vaccines are among the most protective shots we have, so when she gets her kids vaccinated, they are protected. But the large outbreaks we are starting to see are still creating risks, including among our very youngest kids, our immunocompromised kids, and even among vulnerable adults. Measles vaccines are highly effective: 93% after the first dose, 99% after the second dose. The problem is the timing. The first dose is not recommended until a child is 12 to 15 months old, and the second dose usually between the ages of 4 and 6. Infants have some passive immunity from their mom’s antibodies for the first 6 months, but not enough to be fully protective, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention strongly recommends that parents of children too young to be vaccinated avoid travel to areas with measles outbreaks. Read More: What to Know About the Measles Vaccine All children under the age of 1, before they get their first measles vaccine, are at risk if they come near someone with measles. Given that measles is one of the most contagious diseases on Earth, outbreaks mean we are likely to see more infections among children in this age range, including kids whose parents fully intend to vaccinate. And while the first dose is highly protective, the best protection comes after the second dose, which is usually given when a child is ready to start school. Between those two doses, children may still be at some risk, especially if they come into repeated contact with measles from others refusing or unable to be vaccinated.

As powerful storms swept across Central Florida on Monday morning, an Orlando television station’s weather camera captured a tornado hitting the station. “Take shelter!” a Fox 35 morning meteorologist, Brooks Garner, shouted on the air, warning co-workers to get under their desks — the designated safe spaces for such occurrences. He had been delivering updates on tornado warnings for Volusia and Seminole counties when rainy and windy conditions rapidly worsened, turning images into a blurry gray on the monitor. “We’re catching debris right now on the roof,” Mr. Garner said. “Seek shelter immediately,” he added. “Get under your desks, guys. Anchors, under your desks!” He described debris flying across Interstate 4 just north of Orlando, into the neighborhood of Lake Mary and into Sanford, Fla. “This is a confirmed tornado,’’ Mr. Garner announced to viewers as power to the station flickered out. “This is a very serious situation. This is a real, live tornado. It just hit our station.” The whole episode was brief, lasting about a minute or so, and staff members continued to work and assess damage to the area — and to their own studio. One Fox employee shared a photo of damage to vehicles in the station’s parking lot from the severe weather. Pictures from the Seminole Fire Department showed a home that had collapsed just before 10 a.m. on Monday. “Due to the weather impact, there is a collapsed home on the 2100 block of Blue Iris in Longwood and another damaged home,” the department said in an email. “Residents are currently safe from the collapsed home.” Two people inside the home were uninjured. The Fire Department also shared photos of firefighters with saws working to remove toppled trees that blocked roadways. It said it was working with the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office and Emergency Management to assess any further damage to the area. Preliminary estimates from the National Weather Service, which had been warning of tornadoes throughout the morning,confirmed that a tornado had carved about a 1.8-mile path through the Longwood area of Seminole County on Monday. An assessment team with the Weather Service said the tornado may have reached an EF-2 (up to 115 m.p.h. winds) before it crossed Interstate 4 in Lake Mary where the Fox station is. After warning his colleagues on the air, Mr. Garner turned to his local viewers with the same urgency as the storm moved across the area. “Get to the ground level, an interior room away from the windows,” he said, adding, “I have been doing this a long time, and that’s the first time a tornado has hit me while I am doing the weather.”

The wildfires that broke out on Long Island Saturday afternoon and spread over hundreds of acres appeared to be accidental, caused by a failed attempt to make s’mores in a backyard, local officials said on Monday. The preliminary determination came after detectives with the Suffolk County Police Department conducted an investigation into the cause of the fires, interviewing 911 callers and using drones and helicopters to determine whether arson had played a role. What started as a backyard fire in Manorville, near Sunrise Highway on Long Island’s South Shore, became several blazes as strong winds contributed to the embers’ spread, officials said at a news conference on Monday. The fires were under control by Sunday morning and were 100 percent contained on Monday, said Amanda Lefton, the acting commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Kevin Catalina, the Suffolk County police commissioner, said that around 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, a person in Manorville was trying to make s’mores but was initially unable to light a fire because of the wind. The person used cardboard to light the fire, he said, and soon the backyard area went up in flames. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT That fire was put out within an hour, the commissioner said, but a few hours later, another fire was reported less than a quarter mile southeast of the initial fire. “The wind was blowing very strongly from the northwest, so that path makes perfect sense,” he said, adding that two additional fires were reported later. “It is believed that the embers from each fire traveled and continuously started more fires,” he said. Commissioner Catalina said that while that was the working theory of the fire’s cause, the police department planned to interview every 911 caller and rule out other possibilities before making a final determination. The area affected, the Long Island Pine Barrens, is an ecosystem that depends on fire in order to flourish. But officials said that the proliferation of the southern pine beetle, a species that kills pines and leaves behind bone-dry tree bark, might have also contributed to the rapid spread of the wildfires. “There are dead trees all over because of them,” Edward P. Romaine, the Suffolk County executive, said over the weekend, adding that thousands of trees in the area had succumbed to the insect over the last decade. The National Weather Service warned early on Saturday on social media that low humidity and northwest winds of 30 to 35 miles per hour would create an “elevated risk for fire spread.” Gov. Kathy Hochul declared a state of emergency in response to the fires and instituted a burn ban on Long Island. The National Guard was among the agencies on the ground working to extinguish the fire. An HH-60W Jolly Green II helicopter from the 106th Rescue Wing also helped with the response. More than 80 fire departments and 10 emergency medical service units responded from Suffolk County, Mr. Romaine said during the news conference. “Without the combined efforts of everyone involved, we would not have been able to stop this fire,” Mr. Romaine said. “This was a fire that could have been far more serious than it was.” The fires burned two structures, and one firefighter was hospitalized with second-degree burns to the face, officials said over the weekend. Another firefighter suffered a head injury.

Harvard University, one of the nation’s wealthiest schools, on Monday joined the list of universities across the country imposing hiring freezes, citing the uncertainty created by President Trump’s threats to slash funding for higher education. The move was announced in an email to the school community by Dr. Alan M. Garber, Harvard’s president. The announcement comes three days after the Trump administration pulled $400 million in grants and contracts from Columbia University over accusations that the school had failed to protect Jewish students and faculty from antisemitism. A number of other universities have announced hiring freezes or “chills” in the past month in response to potential policy changes of the Trump administration. But the step by Harvard, which has an endowment of more than $50 billion, illustrates the gravity of the situation facing higher education as the Trump administration continues its crusade against colleges and universities. Harvard, like Columbia, is one of 10 schools the Trump administration identified last month as subject to review over accusations that it had not done enough to curb antisemitic behavior on campus during protests over the war in Gaza. In a similar move Monday, the University of Pennsylvania — which is not among the 10 schools the Trump administration identified last month — announced a freeze on staff hiring. It also announced a review of faculty hiring, citing changes to federal research funding, including “stop-work” orders that Penn already received. “The direction is clear, and we are already experiencing reduced funding,” said the announcement, in an email to Penn staff by two university administrators. In addition to issuing a freeze on staff hiring, with some exceptions, the university said it was freezing some raises and reducing other expenses by 5 percent. Those freezes come after funding cuts prompted some departments at Penn to retract verbal admission offers to incoming Ph.D. students. Campuses have been embroiled in debates over whether the protests against Israel constitute antisemitism. While many such demonstrations have been peaceful, some episodes with pro-Palestinian demonstrators and counterprotesters supporting Israel have deteriorated into violence. Many of the protesters themselves are Jewish, and activists, political leaders and university officials have debated what, precisely, constitutes antisemitism. Issuing claims of antisemitism, which could violate federal law, is just one of the methods the Trump administration is trying in an effort to hobble funding of higher education. Other methods include threatening to increase taxes on large university endowments, cutting overhead reimbursements for federal grants and promising to target schools that allow diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Dr. Garber’s email, which was posted to the university’s website, did not mention Mr. Trump by name, but said that universities through the nation “face substantial financial uncertainties driven by rapidly shifting federal policies.” “Effective immediately, Harvard will implement a temporary pause on staff and faculty hiring across the University,” the email said. It was also signed by other top members of Harvard’s administration. The email emphasized that the hiring pause was temporary, but also asked the leadership of Harvard units to “scrutinize discretionary and nonsalary spending.”

The Trump administration invoked an obscure legal statute over the weekend in an attempt to deport a recent Columbia University graduate — and lawful permanent resident of the United States — who helped lead campus protests against Israel last year, people with knowledge of the action said on Monday. Mahmoud Khalil, 30, who graduated in December from Columbia with a master’s degree from its School of International and Public Affairs, was arrested by immigration officers in New York on Saturday and sent to a detention center in Louisiana. Mr. Khalil, who has Palestinian heritage, holds a green card and is married to an American citizen who is eight months pregnant. On Monday, a federal judge in Manhattan ordered the government not to remove Mr. Khalil from the United States while the judge reviewed a petition challenging the legality of his detention. Mr. Khalil’s lawyers also filed a motion on Monday asking the judge to compel the federal government to transfer him back to New York. President Trump said Mr. Khalil’s case was “the first arrest of many to come.” “We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it,” Mr. Trump said on social media on Monday. “If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here. We expect every one of America’s Colleges and Universities to comply,” he added. The arrest and attempted expulsion of Mr. Khalil by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, has provoked alarm over free-speech rights and the Trump administration’s escalating crackdown on immigration and on universities that Mr. Trump and his aides argue are too liberal. The administration did not publicly lay out the legal authority for the arrest. But two people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations, said Secretary of State Marco Rubio relied on a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives him sweeping power to expel foreigners.The provision says any “alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.” Mr. Rubio also reposted a Homeland Security Department statement that accused Mr. Khalil of having “led activities aligned to Hamas.” But officials have not accused him of having any contact with the terrorist group, taking direction from it or providing material support to it.Rather, the rationale is that the anti-Israel protests Mr. Khalil helped lead were antisemitic and fostered a hostile environment for Jewish students at Columbia, the people with knowledge of the matter said. Mr. Rubio’s argument is that the United States has a foreign policy of combating antisemitism around the world and that it would undermine this policy objective to tolerate Mr. Khalil’s continued presence in the United States, they said. “We haven’t seen anything like this as far as I’ve been a practicing attorney,” said Robyn Barnard, an immigration lawyer at Human Rights First. “It’s just really deeply concerning to see the U.S. government deciding to use their limited resources in terms of enforcement of immigration laws to target someone whose speech they just disagree with, but otherwise doesn’t seem to violate our First Amendment.”Mr. Trump has taken measures to try to suppress protests and other activities on campuses that officials in his administration consider anti-Israel or antisemitic, often conflating the two. On Friday, the Trump administration announced it was canceling $400 million of grants and contracts with Columbia, citing “the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” While a student at Columbia, Mr. Khalil, who was a negotiator and spokesman for the protesters, played a major role in campus protests that broke out after Hamas launched an assault on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing about 1,200 people and kidnapping about 250 others. The Israeli military carried out strikes in Gaza that have killed nearly 50,000 Palestinians, according to health officials there. Pro-Palestinian protests and a student encampment at Columbia — as well as the university administration’s response, which included asking the police to clear out protesters — became a lightning rod in national debates over public criticism of Israel. Some protesters adopted slogans like “globalize the intifada” and called for freeing Palestine “from the river to the sea,” a phrase that has radically different interpretations by Israelis and Palestinians and that led to accusations of antisemitism. The State Department declined to comment on Monday. The Homeland Security Department referred questions to the State Department. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump previewed that he intended to expel foreign students who had participated in anti-Israel protests as part of his broader plans for a sweeping crackdown on immigration. He generally framed that plan in terms of canceling student visas, however — not expelling lawful permanent residents.Mr. Khalil, who was born and raised in Syria, became a lawful permanent resident in 2024 after having entered the United States on a student visa around December 2022 to pursue a master’s at Columbia, his lawyers said. His lawyers said Mr. Khalil was detained on Saturday night by four people dressed in plain clothes who entered the lobby of his New York apartment building, which is owned by Columbia, and identified themselves as D.H.S. officers looking to arrest him. Mr. Khalil’s wife and his lawyers, whom Mr. Khalil got on the phone, told the officers that Mr. Khalil had a green card, but the agents arrested him anyway, his lawyers said. A lawful permanent resident, or green-card holder, is protected by the Constitution, which includes First Amendment free-speech rights and Fifth Amendment due-process rights. The Trump administration’s attempt to expel Mr. Khalil under that statutory provision is likely to face a constitutional challenge, several legal experts said. Amy Belsher, the director of immigrants’ rights litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said she could not recall any previous instances in which a secretary of state had invoked that provision since Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act, or I.N.A., in 1952. “It’s an escalation,” she said. “This provision has not been historically invoked and is incredibly vague and would raise real concerns about the weaponization of the I.N.A. to remove people who the administration just disagrees with.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Because any prior use of the provision appears to have been rare at most, legal specialists were still sorting through what it would mean procedurally — including whether an immigration judge would need to formally revoke Mr. Khalil’s green card and issue a final removal order. It was also not clear whether administrative removal proceedings, should they be a necessary first step, would delay the ability of Mr. Khalil’s lawyers to pursue a constitutional challenge in federal court. Mr. Khalil’s lawyers did not immediately reply to a request for comment on Monday. Nor was it clear whether any legal challenge to his detention and deportation proceedings would play out in New York, where he was arrested, or in Louisiana. The appeals court that oversees federal judicial proceedings in Louisiana is particularly conservative. At a rally in Iowa on Oct. 16, 2023, Mr. Trump declared that, “in the wake of the attacks on Israel, Americans have been disgusted to see the open support for terrorists among the legions of foreign nationals on college campuses. They’re teaching your children hate.” He added: “Under the Trump administration, we will revoke the student visas of radical, anti-American and anti-Semitic foreigners at our colleges and universities, and we will send them straight back home.”At a speech in Las Vegas on Oct. 28, Mr. Trump said that “we’ll terminate the visas of all of those Hamas sympathizers, and we’ll get them off our college campuses, out of our cities and get them the hell out of our country.” And at a Nov. 8 campaign stop in Florida, he said he would “quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism.” On Monday, Mr. Rubio met in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in part to discuss efforts to end the war in Gaza. As a Republican senator representing Florida, Mr. Rubio was a vocal supporter of Israel in the war, telling one protester confronting him in the Capitol that the “vicious animals” of Hamas were to blame for all the devastation and civilian deaths from Israeli military strikes in Gaza.

The Trump administration warned 60 universities on Monday that they could face penalties from pending investigations into antisemitism on college campuses, a threat sharpened in recent days by its cancellation of funding to Columbia University and the arrest of a protest leader there. The list of five dozen schools included colleges from both Republican- and Democratic-voting states, elite Ivy League schools such as Brown and Yale, state schools including Arizona State University and the University of Tennessee, and smaller institutions, like Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pa., which has about 2,000 students. President Trump seized on accusations of antisemitism as a cudgel against Democrats during his presidential campaign and has continued to prioritize the issue from the White House. Mr. Trump’s push comes as college campuses are embroiled in debates over what, precisely, constitutes antisemitism and whether that definition should include protests against Israel — even as many of the protesters themselves are Jewish. Last week, Mr. Trump threatened to strip funding from schools that allow “illegal protests,” but did not elaborate on what he meant by that phrase. His administration has also canceled $400 million in federal funding for Columbia University for what it said was “inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” The Trump administration has not said whether that decision was based on a particular finding from any of the three investigations into religious discrimination that were opened during the last 14 months of the Biden administration. Instead, Mr. Trump’s new antisemitism task force notified Columbia on March 3 about a “comprehensive review” of the school’s federal contracts and grants. The administration announced that it was pulling $400 million from the school four days later. The administration also invoked an obscure legal statute to arrest and try to deport a recent Columbia graduate who led protests there, though a federal judge in Manhattan ordered him not to be removed from the United States for now. During a confirmation hearing last month for Linda McMahon, Mr. Trump’s education secretary, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the Republican chairman of the Senate Education Committee, pressed Ms. McMahon about how she would direct the department to address its “backlog” of antisemitism investigations. At the time, Ms. McMahon told Mr. Cassidy that she needed to learn more about the issue. On Friday, four days after her confirmation, the department announced that it would prioritize the resolution of antisemitism investigations. According to department records, there were active investigations into religious discrimination at 40 of the 60 college campuses when Mr. Trump assumed office. At the time, nearly all of those cases were less than 14 months old. An online database of existing federal investigations into colleges and universities has not been updated since Mr. Trump took office in January, and an Education Department spokesman said he was unable to provide information beyond the agency’s news release. Ms. McMahon said in a statement on Monday that federal funding was a privilege for colleges and contingent on “scrupulous adherence” to anti-discrimination laws. “The department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year,” Ms. McMahon said.

The Trump administration is moving to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent legal resident of the United States who recently graduated from Columbia University and had helped lead high-profile campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza. Speaking to reporters in Ireland on Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Mr. Khalil of participating in protests that he described as antisemitic and supportive of the terrorist group Hamas. Foreigners who come to the United States and do such things, he said, will have their visas or green cards revoked and be kicked out. “This is not about free speech,” Mr. Rubio said. “This is about people that don’t have a right to be in the United States to begin with. No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right to a green card, by the way.” Mr. Khalil’s arrest ignited protests in New York and set up a fight over free speech. Here’s what to know about the administration’s attempt to deport him. Who is Mahmoud Khalil? Mr. Khalil, 30, earned a master’s degree from Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs in December. He has Palestinian heritage and is married to an American citizen who is eight months pregnant. Mr. Khalil’s lawyers say he was arrested by immigration officers on Saturday in his apartment in Manhattan even though he told the agents that he had a green card. He was then sent to a detention center in Louisiana. At Columbia last spring, Mr. Khalil assumed a major role in student-led protests on campus against Israel’s war efforts in Gaza. He described his position as a negotiator and spokesman for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a pro-Palestinian group. What’s the legal basis for his arrest and possible deportation? Mr. Khalil has not faced any criminal charges, and deportation proceedings are a civil, not criminal, matter. In arresting Mr. Khalil and working to remove him from the United States, Mr. Rubio is relying on a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that gives him sweeping power to expel foreigners. The provision says that any “alien whose presence or activities in the United States the secretary of state has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.” The administration’s rationale for why Mr. Rubio can invoke that provision to expel Mr. Khalil, according to people with knowledge of the matter, is that the United States has a foreign policy of combating antisemitism around the world. Mr. Khalil’s presence in the United States, the people said, would undermine that objective because the protests he helped lead were antisemitic and fostered a hostile environment for Jewish students. President Trump’s border czar, Thomas Homan, echoed some of that reasoning while speaking to reporters in Albany on Wednesday. He described Mr. Khalil as a “national security threat.” “When you hand out leaflets inciting violence on a college campus, that’s illegal,” Mr. Homan said. “Being in this country with a visa or a resident card is a privilege, and you got to follow certain rules.” At a news briefing on Tuesday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, accused Mr. Khalil of “siding with terrorists.” She asserted that “pro-Hamas propaganda fliers” with the organization’s logo were distributed at the protests Mr. Khalil led at Columbia. She declined to share the purported fliers with reporters, saying that doing so would corrupt the dignity of the White House briefing room, and presented no evidence that Mr. Khalil had produced or distributed any fliers. Nor have officials accused Mr. Khalil of having any contact with Hamas, taking direction from it or providing material support to it. Because lawful permanent residents are protected by the Constitution — including First Amendment free-speech rights and Fifth Amendment due-process rights — the case appears likely to set up a major test of whether that statute, at least as applied to this situation, is constitutional. Immigration law specialists have struggled to find much guiding precedent for previous uses of the provision of the Immigration and National Act the administration is invoking. The Clinton administration invoked the provision in 1995 in an attempt to deport a former Mexican government official, but the constitutional issues were never resolved. The ex-official, who was in the United States on a visa, filed a lawsuit, and in 1996, a federal judge in New Jersey — Maryanne Trump Barry, the sister of the president — struck the provision down as unconstitutional, noting that it had not been interpreted in any reported judicial opinion. But an appeals court overturned her ruling, saying the former official had to go through the administrative immigration process before federal courts could address his case. In 1999, the Board of Immigration Appeals said the administration could use the provision to deport him, but two months later it changed course and instead indicted him. The former official died a month later, so the case ended. What happens next? A federal judge in Manhattan has ordered the government not to remove Mr. Khalil from the United States while his case is pending. But it is not yet clear whether that judge has jurisdiction over him now that he has been moved to Louisiana. The judge did not make any immediate decisions about the detention of Mr. Khalil at a hearing on Wednesday, but he did allow Mr. Khalil’s lawyer two phone calls, their first privileged contact since his arrest. A lawyer for the government said that Mr. Khalil, a legal permanent resident, has been placed in removal proceedings in Louisiana, where he is being held. Mr. Khalil’s lawyers also filed a motion on Monday asking the judge to compel the federal government to transfer him back to New York to reunite him with his wife, who is expected to give birth next month. His immigration status will be decided in a separate process, presided over by an immigration judge who could determine whether to revoke Mr. Khalil’s green card. There is little precedent for deporting a legal permanent resident based on the 1952 law giving the secretary of state the power to do so on foreign policy grounds. Could this happen to other visa or green card holders? Mr. Trump said Mr. Khalil’s case was “the first arrest of many to come.” Ms. Leavitt echoed that warning and said that Columbia had the names of others who had “engaged in pro-Hamas activity” and that the school was “refusing to help” the Homeland Security Department identify them. One of Mr. Khalil’s lawyers, Amy Greer, said that homeland security agents told her they had a warrant to revoke his student visa. When she informed them that Mr. Khalil did not have one, given that he was a permanent resident, she was told that the department had revoked his green card. What has Mr. Trump said about pro-Palestinian protesters? Since 2023, Mr. Trump has repeatedly vowed to revoke visas of international students who participate in pro-Palestinian protests and criticize Israel’s war efforts. “Americans have been disgusted to see the open support for terrorists among the legions of foreign nationals on college campuses,” Mr. Trump declared at a rally in Iowa on Oct. 16, 2023. “They’re teaching your children hate.” He added: “Under the Trump administration, we will revoke the student visas of radical, anti-American and antisemitic foreigners at our colleges and universities, and we will send them straight back home.” At a speech in Las Vegas on Oct. 28 of that year, Mr. Trump said that “we’ll terminate the visas of all of those Hamas sympathizers, and we’ll get them off our college campuses, out of our cities and get them the hell out of our country.”

Ann and Billie Dumaliang say they’re “done with being friendly” with Maria Antonia Yulo-Loyzaga. The renowned conservationists and sisters, in an exclusive new interview with TIME, accuse the Philippine Environment Secretary of “malicious” actions, being “allergic to criticism,” and “strong arming” them into “abandoning” Masungi Georeserve, the internationally-acclaimed ecotourism site they manage just outside Manila. Their anger stems from shock. The Dumaliangs were surprised to see on the news that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources was evicting them from part of Masungi Georeserve—a move that could threaten their overall efforts to protect the 6,600-acre conservation area. On March 7, the department said in a press conference that it canceled a 2002 deal it had with longtime developer Blue Star Construction Development Corporation—the Masungi Georeserve Foundation Inc.’s affiliate company owned by Ben Dumaliang, the sisters’ father—over alleged failure to deliver a contracted government housing project as well as other alleged violations. The canceled deal covers some 740 acres, including the georeserve’s Discovery Trail. The department has ordered Blue Star to leave that 740-acre area within 15 days. “Everyone was quite caught off guard,” Ann Dumaliang tells TIME. “Not just because we were not involved in it at all, but because this is also the first time that they are raising all of these issues in the last 20-plus years that we have been protecting this place.” Masungi Georeserve is a popular eco-tourism destination, known for its rainforest and picturesque limestone formations. The site, its officers, and its rangers, have been recognized worldwide for conservation and geotourism efforts—standing out especially in a country that’s deemed the deadliest in the continent for environmental defenders. The Discovery Trail has allowed visitors to trek through the conservation area for at least 1,500 Philippine pesos ($26) to see karst limestones and other flora and fauna. Billie Dumaliang says the funds collected go toward the reforestation of the more than 5,900 acres around it—an area also under threat if a separate 2017 joint contract gets canceled—and help to pay the up to 100 rangers protecting the reserve. In Friday’s press briefing, an environment department official said, “everyone, even those with us in conservation and [environment] protection, if they violate the law, the government will take action.” But the Dumaliang sisters, who are trustees of the foundation, reject accusations of violating the law and decry unfair treatment. “[Other alleged] violators get, what, one to four show-cause orders?” Ann said. “We get an immediate cancellation. It’s terrible.” Billie added that the department’s move stands “in stark contrast to all of these environmentally destructive projects … that have been allowed to go on for all these years and despite strong opposition.” Yulo-Loyzaga has previously been blamed for failing to swiftly address controversies surrounding the country’s environmental landmarks. Advertisement The sisters also disputed Blue Star’s alleged failure to deliver on contractual obligations, claiming it was the department who did not hold up its end of the contract and did not engage with Masungi Georeserve’s officers. Billie Dumaliang says she believes environment secretary Yulo-Loyzaga has been particularly “vindictive,” after groups such as theirs have criticized her. “We’re very vocal about this, we’ve exposed illegal activities, we make her look bad, but these are very petty reasons for taking a course of action that is not in line with the mandate of the department,” Billie said. Billie added that Yulo-Loyzaga’s directive on Masungi also “puts into question the commitment of the current administration to its international commitments on climate change, human rights, biodiversity, land degradation, and peace.” The Philippines has pledged to rehabilitate 7.1 million hectares of degraded and deforested land by 2028. Advertisement Some Philippine lawmakers are also questioning the rationale behind the cancellation of the Blue Star contract. In statements on social media, Senator Nancy Binay criticized the haphazard decision and asked what the department’s plan and vision for the Georeserve is after the cancellation, while Representative Raoul Manuel slammed the department for failing to have a dialogue with the Masungi Georeserve Foundation before cancelling and painting the organization as an “enemy.” The Philippine environment department and secretary did not immediately respond to specific queries from TIME, referring instead to a primer made by the department that outlines the history of the Blue Star contract as well as Blue Star’s alleged violations, including: imposing fees and constructing facilities in the site without local permits, fencing a portion of government property, and failing to complete agreed upon housing units in the area. Advertisement For now, the Dumaliangs are planning to exhaust their legal remedies, even as the department mulls involving the police to enforce the eviction. They are aware of the security risks—those with interests in the land, such as resort owners, have been linked to attacks on the site’s rangers and officers patrolling and protecting the site, and the georeserve has been the subject of online smear campaigns and threats. They believe that with the order, Masungi’s detractors are “emboldened” to continue the harassment and potentially escalate violence. They say the order sends a “chilling effect” to all environment defenders. But still, they aren’t planning to leave Masungi without a fight. “We will invoke our right, of course, to continue our work,” Billie said. “If we need to use our bodies to shield, then we will.”

While the country holds its breath for the Supreme Court’s responses to the Trump administration’s serial depredations, it’s hard to focus on anything else. Nonetheless, a case set for argument next month before the court merits more attention than the little it has received, given its destabilizing potential for public education. The central question is whether a state that allows charter schools as alternatives to traditional public schools, as nearly all states do, must agree to fund those that are explicitly religious. To emphasize: The court is not being asked to decide whether a state may, if it chooses, include a taxpayer-funded parochial school among its charter school offerings. That question alone would challenge the long-held understanding of the separation of church and state in the context of public education. This case goes further. It concerns what would be the first fully taxpayer-supported religious school in modern American history. The internet-based “virtual” Catholic school that the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa seek to operate, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, would promote the “evangelizing mission of the Church.” The question is whether the Constitution requires Oklahoma to permit the school to open its virtual doors as a public charter school. This is far from the first collision between the two religion clauses of the First Amendment, the protection for the “free exercise” of religion and the prohibition against religion’s official “establishment.” But this case reaches the court at a time of rapid change in the justices’ treatment of the relationship between the two clauses. Not so long ago, the Supreme Court was willing and able to manage the inherent tension between the two clauses by giving weight to each. For example, the question in a 2004 case was the constitutionality of a state’s explicit exclusion of ministerial studies from eligibility for an otherwise widely available state scholarship program. A student who wanted to use the scholarship to study for the ministry argued that his inability to do so violated the Free Exercise Clause. The court rejected that argument, holding that while the Establishment Clause would have permitted the state to subsidize ministerial training if it chose, the Free Exercise Clause did not impose such a requirement. In rejecting the argument that the state had imposed a burden on the free exercise of religion, the court said the state was not penalizing or criminalizing a religious service or rite, prohibiting ministers from participating in a community’s affairs or requiring students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit. Instead, the court said, “the state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction,” which it said was a legitimate interest of the state in preventing an establishment of religion.The court’s goal was to maintain “play in the joints” between the two clauses that frequently were in tension with each other, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the majority opinion in Locke v. Davey. But “play in the joints” has fallen out of favor in the current court. In a 2022 case, Carson v. Makin, the question was whether a state could exclude religious schools from a program that permitted people who lived far from a public secondary school to send their children elsewhere at state expense. The court held that the exclusion of religious schools from eligibility violated the free exercise rights of parents who would have chosen a religious school. The 2004 decision turned out, after all, not to stand for the broad principle of maintaining a balance between the two religion clauses. Chief Justice Rehnquist’s successor, John Roberts, wrote in the Carson decision that Locke v. Davey should be interpreted to apply only to its precise facts and “cannot be read beyond its narrow focus on vocational religious degrees to generally authorize the state to exclude religious persons from the enjoyment of public benefits on the basis of their anticipated religious use of the benefits.” In a series of cases beginning in the early 2000s and culminating with that one, the court has substituted for what would have been Establishment Clause concerns a seemingly limitless nondiscrimination principle: Whatever the government does for anyone, it has to do for religion, too. Further, the court’s invocation of the Free Exercise Clause in these cases has depended on the notion that when parents choose a generally available financial subsidy like a voucher or tax credit for religious use, that is a private choice in which the government plays no role. The challenge in the case involving the virtual Catholic school, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, is whether the court can sustain the fiction of private choice when it’s no longer a matter of individuals directing a state tuition subsidy to a private school that happens to be religious. St. Isidore would be, like the other charter schools that some 50,000 Oklahoma students currently attend, a taxpayer-financed public school. Or so the Oklahoma Supreme Court held last June when it declared that the state’s Charter School Board’s approval of St. Isidore violated the federal Establishment Clause as well as the Oklahoma Constitution and the state law governing charter schools. “Under the Act,” the state court wrote, referring to the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, “a charter school is a public school.” The court noted that while charter schools are free from some state regulations, they have to adhere to numerous other rules that apply to ordinary public schools. Their teachers are eligible for the same state retirement benefits as other public school teachers, the court observed. “St. Isidore will be acting as a surrogate of the state in providing free public education as any other state-sponsored charter school,” the court said. “What St. Isidore requests from this court is beyond the fair treatment of a private religious institution in receiving a generally available benefit, implicating the Free Exercise Clause. It is about the state’s creation and funding of a new religious institution violating the Establishment Clause.” As the state court emphasized, the characterization of St. Isidore as a public school matters because only in that case is it a “state actor” to which the federal Constitution applies. The Charter School Board and St. Isidore itself, both of which are appealing the Oklahoma court’s decision, are arguing vigorously to the justices that the school is, in fact, private and that the nondiscrimination principle should resolve its case. “St. Isidore is not an arm of the Oklahoma government,” the school said in its petition seeking Supreme Court review, “and Oklahoma has plainly violated its Free Exercise rights by cutting it off from the benefits created by the Charter Schools Act” solely because it is religious. The school is represented in its Supreme Court appeal by lawyers including Notre Dame Law School’s Religious Liberty Clinic. That is probably the reason that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who spent 15 years as a law professor at Notre Dame and has taught classes there while on the bench, has recused herself from the case. The Charter School Board is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, the prominent Christian litigating group that has scored a series of recent victories at the Supreme Court. The case is deeply entangled in Oklahoma politics. It was the state’s attorney general, Gentner Drummond, who sued the Charter School Board to keep the school from opening. The state’s governor, J. Kevin Stitt, strongly supports the school and filed his own brief, which opposes the brief that Attorney General Drummond filed. Both officials are Republicans. Before the board approved St. Isidore’s charter, Mr. Drummond had warned against creating a “slippery slope” that would compel approval of charter school applications by any and all religious groups, “even those most Oklahomans would consider reprehensible and unworthy of public funding.” The warning was valid as far as it went, but it should have gone further. Yes, an occasional Muslim madrasa seeking to incorporate as a charter school would be likely to cause controversy, but the problem is much broader. It is easy to imagine a scramble for public resources among mainstream faith groups, each with a curriculum in mind. As of 2021, some 3.7 million students were enrolled in public charter schools across the country. How many millions more might be drawn to a safely siloed religious education if it is available at taxpayer expense? And who will be left in the secular public schools? A quarter-century ago, Justice David Souter, a devout Episcopalian and a strict separationist, dissented from a decision that expanded the eligibility of religious schools for various types of equipment and other public resources. “The establishment prohibition of government religious funding serves more than one end,” the now-retired justice wrote in his dissenting opinion in Mitchell v. Helms. “It is meant to guarantee the right of individual conscience against compulsion, to protect the integrity of religion against the corrosion of secular support, and to preserve the unity of political society against the implied exclusion of the less favored and the antagonism of controversy over public support for religious causes.” At a time of surging Christian nationalism in response to the country’s evolving demography, that warning is even more timely now than it was then. This case puts the Supreme Court to a choice. If St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is a public school, the court can uphold it only by further erasure of the Establishment Clause. If the justices deem it sufficiently private to evade the Constitution’s reach, they will have invited further fragmentation of public education, one of the few experiences that most Americans share. At this fraught moment for the court and the country, it may not be too much to suggest that the future of an increasingly fragile civil society is at stake as well.