NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump administration said Monday it will resume flying a rainbow Pride flag on a federal flagpole at the Stonewall National Monument in New York City, reversing course two months after removing the banner from the first national monument commemorating LGBTQ+ history.
The government revealed the decision in court papers as it agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by advocacy and historic preservation groups who had sought to block the Feb. 9 removal. A judge approved the deal.
The Interior Department and National Park Service “have confirmed their intention to maintain a Pride flag at Stonewall,” lawyers for the government and the groups wrote in a joint court filing.
The flag — one of several Pride banners at the 7.7-acre (3.1-hectare) park — won’t be removed, except for “maintenance or other practical purposes,” the filing said. (snip-details of position and measurements of the Pride flag)
We were told we couldn’t take a joke, and that social media isn’t real life. Now the misogyny of early chatrooms and Gamergate has reached the White House
Harrison Sullivan, known as HSTikkyTokky, in Louis Theroux: Inside the Manosphere. Photograph: Netflix/PA
Why has it taken so long for us to treat misogyny as a political problem? The modern manosphere has been metastasising for many years – and for years, mainstream culture has responded with a helpless shrug. There was nothing unusual about men hurting women, even if the technology was new.
In the early aughts, angry and alienated men began indulging in recreational misogyny online, bombarding women and girls in the public eye with threats, insults, harassment, hacking, and hideous “revenge porn”. Strange as it may now sound, though, “the internet” was still seen as separate from “real life”.
That, at least, was what I was told the first time I went to the police about the death threats I was receiving as a young columnist. Nothing could be done, because what happened on social media wasn’t real and didn’t count. If I didn’t like it I should get offline, and presumably continue my work via rotary phone and fax. Those of us who were early targets of what would become the manosphere did not have the luxury of ignoring the issue. For us, it was easy to see that this was something new and serious, easy to understand how the tactics used against us might be deployed elsewhere – and how quickly matters could escalate.
Which is what happened in 2014. In May of that year, the terrorist Elliot Rodger killed six people and brought global attention to “incels” – young men radicalised by sexual resentment.
Three months later came Gamergate, a global orgy of online harassment targeting women in the video game industry. It all started when up-and-coming game creator Zoe Quinn was attacked by a bitter ex-boyfriend in a book-length tirade of sexual and professional jealousy. The non-scandal became a lightning rod for tens of thousands of gamers furious that women were intruding on a medium that was meant to be their personal power fantasy.
On anonymous forums like 4chan, men coordinated an extraordinary campaign of abuse dressed up as concern for “journalistic ethics”. Quinn and other creators were driven from their homes, but the firestorm was already out of control. Over the next few years, as “incels” continued to carry out acts of mass murder, every entertainment industry, from comics and publishing to film and TV, was besieged by obsessive trolls casting themselves as brave rebels against illiberal “social justice warriors”. The more they got away with it, the more they treated it like a game.
Gamergate brought together the disparate strands of what we now call the manosphere: the grifting pickup-artists, the Christian nationalists, the bitter “incels” and the furious fans triggered into mass social vandalism whenever they heard a story they weren’t the hero of. This slurry of half-formed fixations congealed into a coherent ideology of aggrieved entitlement, with its own language – “escaping the matrix”, “taking the red pill” – and their own logic of heroic victimhood in the face of women’s sexual power. The rage and alienation of men abandoned by post-crash capitalism was channelled towards a common cause – one ripe for co-option by the worst possible actors.
Throughout the mid-aughts, mainstream media continued to underestimate the manosphere.The fringes of the right did not make the same mistake. Gamergate was the proving ground for some of the central propagandists of the new “alt-right”. Steve Bannon, the political svengali and co-founder of Breitbart News, saw the potential in this cohort of cranks. He went on to run Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign, helping to deliver that key demographic to a president who personified everything the new cult of male supremacy most admired, as he crowed about sexual violence and held the notionally free world hostage to his every emotional spasm.
In hindsight, it is startling that all of this was normalised for so long. It was apparentlyinconceivable that violence against women could constitute a crisis – unless, of course, the violence was blamed on immigrants or on transgender people, at which point women’s safety suddenly shot to the top of the political agenda. When feminists and others in the infected eye of the storm tried to raise the alarm, we were told we were exaggerating for attention, or that we couldn’t take a joke. Under the posturing,cartoon frogs and memespeak, these were lost young men who deserved patience and understanding, and if we didn’t offer it we were heartless, humourless killjoys.
Identical arguments were used to dismiss the rise of Maga until it was far too late. The playbook tested out on feminists and on Black, queer and female creators in the mid-aughts was replicated in far-right movements across the global north – as was the response of muted both-sidesism. Then as now, politicians, pundits and industry leaders officially disapproved of the worst excesses of the manosphere, but declined to take an explicit stand, terrified that any display of moral integrity would alienate their base.
As the 2010s turned into the 2020s and the manosphere continued to expand, funnelling its recruits towards ever more extreme, explicitly racist ideas, it became fashionable to cast “social justice warriors” as the pressing danger to human freedom. Politicians and public figures seemed far more concerned about the #MeToo movement, which seemed proof positive that feminists had gone too far – and deserved, perhaps, to be punished for it. After the third or fourth time a documentary crew came to interview me about all the death threats, I realised that they didn’t want to help – they wanted to watch.
Lots of people did. After Gamergate, bigotry became a growth industry for enterprising young lads unburdened by conscience. As a journalist, I interviewed many young far-right men who admitted that what they really wanted was to be influencers and film-makers. For clicks and views they courted controversy and flirted with the far right – but it didn’t take long for the relationship to get serious. As Kurt Vonnegut writes in his anti-fascist masterpiece Mother Night, “we are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be”.
Today, nobody is pretending that this is a joke any more. Trump, in his deranged dotage, is openly courting the manosphere, and the young men of gen Z are veering towards the far right en masse. There’s a clear line from the social vandalism of Gamergate to the mega-grifting male supremacists, scamming their followers with the promise of a reality where women and girls are non-player characters, to be defeated, exploited or traded for tokens in a brutal marketplace of human value. Many young men have lived their entire lives in the shadow of this weaponised misogyny – and so have young women. And that sinister ideology is still gnawing at the heart of power.
A few weeks ago, in a break from encouraging his deranged president to take over Greenland, White House adviser Stephen Miller found time to post a tweet on X that appears to be mocking the new Star Trek series for being too diverse. Elon Musk emerged from his fug of racial conspiracy theories and transphobia to agree. This is embarrassing, and not just because any half-literate nerd knows that Star Trek has been woke since 1966. Because even after turning the world into their personal thunder dome, the representatives of aggrieved white male power are still unsatisfied, still demanding we cater to their every petty whim. They will continue to do so until the rest of us, at last, refuse to tolerate their nonsense.
Laurie Penny is a journalist, author and screenwriter. They write the substack Force of Culture
It was a yesterday’s Wonkette tab, but I just got to that email over lunch. It’s a horrible story. Of course, the hospital likely is understaffed thanks to policies and practices of our government, but still. Here is this-
Cara Lynn Shultz is a writer-reporter at PEOPLE. Her work has previously appeared in Billboard and Reader’s Digest. People Editorial Guidelines
NEED TO KNOW
Conor Hylton’s family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Yale New Haven Health-Bridgeport Hospital
The ICU where Hylton was treated had no on-site doctors and relied on off-site telehealth monitoring, the complaint alleges
A representative for the hospital tells PEOPLE, “We are unable to comment on pending litigation”
A dental student died in a Connecticut ICU where he wasn’t being cared for by an on-site doctor, but instead, was monitored remotely by an off-site physician via video.
The family of Conor Hylton has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Yale New Haven Health-Bridgeport Hospital after the 26-year-old died in the Milford Campus’s intensive care unit. According to the complaint obtained by PEOPLE, the site is a “tele-ICU meaning there are no qualified ICU intensivists on site.” The complaint further states, “ICU intensivists are located off-site at a centralized remote location, purportedly monitoring critically ill patients through a video screen.”
In a statement to PEOPLE, a representative for the medical group said, “Yale New Haven Health is aware of this lawsuit and is committed to providing the safest and highest quality of care possible, however, we are unable to comment on pending litigation.”
Hylton first arrived at the hospital at 11:08 a.m. on August 14, 2024, with abdominal pain and vomiting, per the complaint, which says he was admitted and diagnosed with “pancreatitis, dehydration, metabolic acidosis, and alcohol withdrawal.” His condition “continued to change and deteriorate over the evening.”
At 4:30 a.m., the complaint says, “Mr. Hylton slid down in bed, his eyes rolled back and he became unresponsive and exhibited seizure-like activity, vomited, became bradycardic and code was called. He was intubated, but he could not be resuscitated, and he was pronounced dead.”
The complaint states that although the pronouncement of Hylton’s death was said to be made by an on-site doctor, it was actually done by a ‘tele-health’ provider on a video screen.”
According to the complaint, an on-site doctor was called to intubate Hylton, but “the provider summoned to perform the intubation did not know how to find the ICU and had to find someone else to show him where it was located. This led to a delay in [care].”
An expert medical opinion included with the lawsuit wrote, “no on-site doctor assessed Mr. Hylton from the time he was admitted to the ICU until after he exhibited seizure activity at 4:30 a.m.”
Joel T. Faxon, partner at Faxon Law Group, which is representing Hylton’s family, said in a press release: “It’s alarming to think in a supposedly intensive care setting: Where is a doctor? Where are the nurses? How does the emergency doctor not know how to get to the ICU to provide life saving care?”
Faxon confirmed to PEOPLE that neither Hylton nor his family were informed there were no on-site doctors at the ICU. As Faxon told PEOPLE exclusively, “If the Hylton family knew that their son was being placed in a fake icu with no doctor present they would have demanded he be transferred to a hospital that could properly treat him. They were never given that option and, tragically, Conor died as a result.”
A new report by The New York Times details how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu persuaded Donald Trump into going to war with Iran. Details in the story show that Donald Trump was oversold on the idea. But Trump wasn’t just oversold; he wanted to be told what he wanted to hear, even if it was wrong.
There was deep skepticism from his inner circle about going to war, and despite polling his top advisers, he often only heard “what he wanted to hear,” and his team wound up serving as an echo chamber for his gut instincts.
According to story written byJonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, JD Vance was the most vocal in his opposition to the United States going to war with Iran, while CIA Director Jim Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Trump that Netanyahu had “oversold” him on what could be achieved by the bombing campaign. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, on the other hand, was gung-ho on going to war. (snip-MORE, and it’s hot)
As predicted, Donald Trump taco’ed out again after threatening to commit genocide against the Iranian people.
Make no mistake about it, threatening to destroy an entire civilization is threatening genocide. Donald Trump was threatening to commit war crimes. (snip-MORE, also hot)
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – On Easter Sunday, God’s chosen in the White House issued a vulgar and unbalanced posting on his “Truth Social” that epitomizes the insanity of his Iran War. Attending to it closely will help us understand how Trump has strengthened the government of the Islamic Republic and put it in control of global energy. Trump fondly imagines that he can dislodge Iran from this new ascendancy, but he is wrong, since it depends on sabotage, a sabotage that cannot be policed.
This is embarrassing, Delete it, President @realDonaldTrump – unless you want everyone to think you’ve lost your marbles.
The foul language and clear mental imbalance visible in this announcement sparked a further round of calls for Trump’s removal under Article 25 of the Constitution, which is nothing more than an internet meme since Trump has surrounded himself on his cabinet with people even more certifiable than he is, and who wouldn’t dare move against him.
Trump, having imbibed whatever substance it is that makes him manic, announced that “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!!”
He is repeating a threat he made previously, to bomb Iran’s civilian electricity-generating plants as well as its civilian bridges.
Iran has 98 major power plants fueled by fossil gas, which generate 85% of the country’s electricity. The largest, the Damavand power plant south of the capital, Tehran, has a generating capacity of over 2.8 gigawatts.
One of Iran’s power plants is nuclear, at Bushehr. If Trump or Israel bombs it, the consequent radiation pollution will deeply harm the Arab Gulf states, not only through airborne particles but also by contaminating sea water, which is drawn on by the region’s desalinization plants. This exposure to radiation would certainly increase cancer risk in the region. There are mountains between Bushehr and the Iranian interior, so the radioactive particles would be blown west toward other countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Striking civilian power plants, and above all nuclear ones, endangers the noncombatant population of children, women and unarmed men and violates International Humanitarian Law.
In fact, the International Criminal Court in the Hague issued “warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu and Mr Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov, in the context of the situation in Ukraine for alleged international crimes . . .” on June 24, 2024. They were indicted for “for the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects (article 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Rome Statute) and the war crime of causing excessive incidental harm to civilians or damage to civilian objects (article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute), and the crime against humanity of inhumane acts under article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute.”
Among the “civilian objects” that these Russian officials ordered attacked in Ukraine were power plants and structures such as the Kryukovsky Bridge.
So Trump is talking like a war criminal, which tells you why he has placed sanctions on International Criminal Court judges.
Trump already struck the unfinished B1 bridge linking Tehran to Karaj. Since it was not finished, it could not possibly have had a military purpose, contrary to the lies of the lying liars in the Trump administration who gave that as the excuse for hitting it.
Trump continued, “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell– JUST WATCH!
It is not clear how a body of water such as a strait could copulate. However, it can engender revenue, and does so for Iran. A lot of revenue.
Iran has not actually closed the Strait of Hormuz entirely. It is exporting its own petroleum through that narrow aperture, mainly to China. Trump has been forced by the global oil shortage to lift sanctions on the Iranian tankers, and so Iran is also selling again to India. Before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rushed Trump into war on Iran on February 28, Iran was exporting about 1.4 million barrels a day to China. The price of petroleum was about $67 a barrel then, but Iran had to offer a steep discount to offset American sanctions, and so was probably only getting $57 or less a barrel. So Iran was getting something like $29 billion a year for its petroleum from China and a few other customers (90% goes to China).
China is now likely having to pay $110 a barrel for Iranian petroleum.
Iran’s oil income just went up to $55 billion a year if these prices and this volume of trade persists, which is plausible. So the “crazy bastards” in charge of Iran have nearly doubled their income off the Netanyahu-Trump war because of the fertility, under their control, of the “fuckin’ Strait.” The Iranian oil industry is state-owned, so all the money goes to the clerics and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, as well as to the conventional army and the elected institutions, the parliament and president. This extra income helps the government tamp down resistance, strengthening it against civil society. In any case, many Iranians under foreign attack are rallying around the flag. Of course there are also tax losses from the economic disruption of the war, but the vastly increased oil income helps make up for them as far as the government is concerned. If the price of oil goes to $200 a barrel, as it may well, Iran’s government could get $100 billion a year for its petroleum.
Not only that, but Iran has instituted a toll system, wherein countries that have good relations with Iran and pay a fee can transit the Strait without fear of an Iranian drone attack. In contrast, countries that Iran believes contribute to the American war effort against Tehran such as the Emirates and Kuwait, are blockaded by the threat of such strikes. These tolls could be an ongoing and lucrative source of income for the government. Before the war, 138 ships transited the Strait daily. If that traffic resumes but each has to pay Iran a $2 million toll, that would bring in $96 billion a year, i.e. four times what Iran was getting for its petroleum before the war.
So here’s the thing. With the advent of Iran’s Shahed drones, which can be manufactured inexpensively and of which it has tens and thousands, there is no way for anyone, including Trump and the US military, to stop Iran from sabotaging ships that won’t pay the $2 million. At least, I don’t see how it could be done. You’d need tens of thousands of interceptors, and we hardly have any left. Moreover, interceptors cost $1.5 million apiece, so it makes much more sense to allow each ship to pay Iran the $2 million.
Container ship in Strait of Hormuz. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Indra Beaufort).Public Domain. Via Picryl .
Trump has shown Iran how it can go into the protection business in the Gulf for the long term. Nice oil shipping industry you have here, it would be a shame if anything happened to it. And off that, Iran actually increases its GDP substantially.
If Trump takes out Iran’s electricity and bridges, he can interfere with its economy and its society in a big way. But he can’t stop the drones or the protection racket that way. Moreover, Iran has made it clear that its response will be to take out the power plants in the Gulf Arab states as well as in Israel. Since the US and Israel are running low on interceptors, and since even small Shahed drones have great range and can do a lot of damage, Iran’s threat is credible.
If Trump takes out Iran’s petroleum-production capability, Iran will crash oil production in the Gulf, taking 20 million barrels a day off the market for years to come. That would certainly be another Great Depression and likely would spell the end of the oil industry, since everyone in the world would migrate to electric vehicles quickly.
So although Trump meant the phrase ironically and blasphemously, the Iranian authorities may well end up saying “Praise be to Allah” over Trump’s monumental stupidity.
The largest medical association in the United States supports gender-affirming care — a stance it has reiterated in different ways over the last 10 years. But as Republicans press leading medical organizations on health care for transgender youth, the American Medical Association (AMA) is the latest group caught between political rhetoric and the complex realities of specialized care that few people receive.
As patients, families and doctors navigate this care in an increasingly confusing and hostile landscape, what medical groups say matters. But lately, what they’ve had to say — and how politicians interpret it — has only caused more uncertainty.
The AMA’s stance was already in question after a January meeting between leaders of major medical groups and Dr. Mehmet Oz, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. After that meeting, which was first reported by The New York Times, one group in attendance — the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) — muddied the waters about whether it had taken a more restrictive stance on gender-affirming care.
Questions soon followed for the AMA, the nation’s most prominent organization representing doctors.
Twenty Republican state attorneys general are pushing for the AMA to broadly oppose gender-affirming care for minors, in response to news coverage about their recommendations around youth surgeries. The attorneys suggest that the AMA may be violating state consumer protection laws by confusing, or even misleading, medical providers and patients about their stance. They mention wanting to “avoid a formal investigation” into the issue.
The attorneys, led by Steve Marshall in Alabama, wrote a letter in February asking whether the group recommends hormone therapy or puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria in minors.
“If you agree that there is insufficient evidence to support using surgical interventions to treat gender dysphoria in minors — as your recent statement indicates — we do not understand how you can find that there is sufficient evidence to support using hormonal interventions to treat gender dysphoria in minors,” their letter reads.
This is an escalation of a familiar tactic, said Khadijah Silver, director of gender justice and health equity at Lawyers for Good Government. And if it works, it will be a major weapon in the political fight to delegitimize gender-affirming care, they said.
“If you can convince the public that they have shifted stance, that’s extremely powerful,” they said, referring to the AMA.
In some ways, that impact is already being felt.
In a recent congressional hearing on rising health care costs, the board of trustees chair for the American Medical Association was asked about how patients across the country are struggling to find doctors. Two hours into the hearing, he was also asked about gender-affirming care for trans youth — a topic that affects few Americans, but takes up a lot of political air.
Rep. Erin Houchin, a Republican from Indiana, asked why the medical group changed its position on surgeries for trans youth.
But the AMA maintains that it has not changed its position.
“In surgery and minors, our belief is that it should generally be deferred until adulthood. But, we respect the physician-patient-family relationship in determining that,” Dr. David H. Aizuss answered in response to the question from the congresswoman.
That exchange took only a few minutes out of a hearing that spanned the gamut of crises facing the U.S. health care system, like skyrocketing insurance premiums and a worsening physician shortage. But it represents a growing tension between Republicans and medical groups, as elected officials who oppose gender-affirming care push for major health care organizations to do the same.
The American Medical Association declined to comment on the attorneys general’s letter, which had asked for a response by March 25. In a broader statement, the medical group said it supports gender-affirming care.
“We support evidence-based treatment for medical care, including gender affirming care,” an AMA spokesperson said in an email. “Currently, the evidence for surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement. In the absence of clear evidence, surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood. Treatment decisions should be made between the physician and the patient (and family) based on the best medical evidence and clinical judgment.”
That position aligns with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), an authority on medical care for trans people. WPATH recommends that patients generally wait until adulthood before seeking surgery. Trans youth rarely undergo surgery of any kind; of the small number performed on adolescents, the majority are mastectomies.
If an adolescent does need surgery, WPATH recommends they meet extensive criteria — including a full understanding of reproductive side effects, a year’s worth of hormone therapy, sustained gender incongruence, plus emotional and cognitive maturity.
The questions surrounding surgery come on the heels of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ response to the January meeting with Oz. In what the Times described as a “tense” meeting, Oz pressed leaders of organizations including the AMA and the ASPS on why they recommend gender-affirming care for trans youth. At that meeting, the surgeons group said it would be changing its position, per the Times.
Weeks after the meeting, ASPS released a nine-page statement saying that gender-affirming surgery should be delayed for minors until a patient is at least 19. The surgeons’ group cited insufficient evidence that benefits for surgery outweigh risks, and pointed to a controversial report created by the Trump administration to back its position.
The surgeons group noted that it still opposes criminalization of such medical care. The Trump administration celebrated the announcement.
“Today marks another victory for biological truth in the Trump administration,” said former Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary Jim O’Neill, in a press release. Oz, who has compared gender-affirming care for minors to lobotomies, applauded the American Society of Plastic Surgeons “for placing itself on the right side of history.”
In the following days, the surgeon’s group appeared to backtrack. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons reportedly told NPR that its position “does not include a blanket recommendation for surgery for minors.” The ASPS did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
The AMA has had its own trouble communicating its position. In a recent internal newsletter from the board chair, the association said that its policy on gender-affirming care has not changed at all; and that it requested a correction from The New York Times in response to the outlet’s coverage of its initial statement on youth surgeries. However, the Times says it has received no such requests.
This back-and-forth is taking place against an intense political backdrop: Six states have made it a felony for doctorsto provide gender-affirming care to trans youth. Hospitals across the country have shuttered gender clinics in response to pressure from the administration. As a result, some young patients are cut off in the middle of treatment and medical professionals are grappling with how the law impacts them.
And despite ample news coverage, gender-affirming care is still not widely understood.
Very few transgender youth seek and access surgeries. More rely on hormone therapy and puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria, which is a medical condition that can cause significant distress for trans people.
Puberty blockers delay the hormones that cause kids to go through puberty, which can be an intense and emotionally fraught time for trans youth. Many families say this treatment is crucial for their child’s wellbeing and prevents distress caused by dysphoria. There are potential risks, like decreased bone density, which is monitored by medical providers. Some providers recommend weight-bearing exercise or diet optimization to boost calcium and vitamin D levels while on puberty blockers.
Hormone therapy, which involves taking testosterone or estrogen to cause physical changes that align one’s body with their gender identity, is another treatment that some trans youth receive to alleviate dysphoria. As with puberty blockers, clinics require a mental health assessment as well as parental or guardian consent for the treatment.
The Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics are under federal investigation over their support for gender-affirming care. Both medical groups have sued, as the government seeks information to determine if they have made “false or unsubstantiated representations” regarding the care.
The attorneys’ general letter to the American Medical Association is leveling up that pressure on medical groups, Silver said.
“Because the care is so politicized, any association that stands up and asserts its support for physicians who provide the care, will be made an example of,” they said.
PUBLISHED: 31 March 2026 LAST UPDATED: 31 March 2026
“Everyone is on high alert, constantly watching the sky with fright and exhaustion […] We also keep our eyes on our mobile phone connections — the moment the signal drops, we immediately take cover in underground shelters. We’ve come to understand that a loss of communication signals an impending airstrike.— Humanitarian aid worker on the internet shutdown that took place in Myanmar during air strikes near Tamu township in the Sagaing region.
The 2025 data and analysis confirm a horrific reality: internet shutdowns are increasing, not decreasing — and their impact on people’s lives is devastating. Shutdowns reached a new record high in the past year, continuing the steady increase since 2020. Our new report, Rising repression meets global resistance: Internet shutdowns in 2025, documents how democratic and autocratic governments alike deploy them to silence, collectively punish, and terrorize populations, as well as to hide human rights violations and killings. At the same time, we highlight how resistance is growing and people’s power is rising, and offer recommendations for stakeholders to push back. From Myanmar to Iran, Tanzania to Nepal, communities are challenging repression, demanding accountability, and devising new ways to reconnect during blackouts.
In 2025, Access Now and the #KeepItOn coalition documented 313 shutdowns in 52 countries, surpassing the appalling records from 2024 (304) and 2023 (289). Seven new countries joined the offender list in 2025, meaning that people in 100 countries have now experienced a shutdown since we started tracking in 2016. As 2026 began, there were 75 shutdowns in 33 countries that persisted from 2025, a significant increase from the 54 shutdowns in 26 countries that were ongoing from 2024 into 2025. This shows that perpetrators are increasingly attempting to permanently block communications platforms or even keep entire populations cut off from the internet indefinitely.
If you can’t see the highlights below, please check your privacy-enhancing browser extensions. Open in desktop view for the best experience.
(snip-go see. The site is Access Now, it’s safe, the subject of this story (internet access) is its specialty, and my Ad Blocker even shows no blocked ads on the page! Go finish reading this, because forewarned should be forearmed, as to organizing locally.)
Last April, the president unleashed a tidal wave of tariffs on ‘liberation day’. Analysts say the policy has failed, even by the Trump administration’s own terms
Before Donald Trump declared “liberation day” on 2 April 2025 and shocked the world by raising import tariffs on nearly every country the US did business with, he had spent almost three months causing chaos in Washington.
The wholesale slashing of government jobs under Doge (the “department of government efficiency”) and the defunding of US aid agencies had shown White House watchers that the US president was in a hurry to upset institutions he considered profligate or useless.
Investors quickly understood that chaos was an essential tool in Trump’s armoury. Almost as soon as he was inaugurated, there was a steady decline in the value of the dollar against other currencies. Investors sold assets denominated in dollars and bought assets elsewhere: Europe, Asia, South America.
“If you think that discouraging investors from buying assets in the US is a victory, then you don’t believe in a growing economy,” said Dario Perkins, the head of global research at the consultancy TS Lombard. “If it was possible for Trump to have spent the last 14 months on the golf course, we would be in a better place.”
Russ Mould, the investment director of the British stockbroker AJ Bell, said: “America is still home to the world’s largest economy and its reserve currency, as well as the globe’s largest equity and bond markets, but investors continue to reassess their exposure one year on from liberation day.”
The economy has either gone sideways or declined, depending on the preferred measure. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that US companies, which were supposed to be the victors in Trump’s new tariff war, stopped hiring almost as soon as liberation day was announced.
Significant revisions in February to data covering 2025 pushed down payroll employment by 403,000 jobs, resulting in the addition of 181,000 jobs last year. This small boost is set against the 163 million people who are employed in the US.
Figures from the Conference Board, a US thinktank, show consumer confidence sliding after Trump took office. A brief recovery appears to coincide with a huge climbdown on 12 May – the day the US and China agreed to defuse their post-liberation day tariff escalation.
