Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

This Is the Damage Kennedy Has Done in Less Than a Year

This Is the Damage Kennedy Has Done in Less Than a Year

An illustration shows three American flag adhesive bandages against a red background.
Jennifer Hueston for The New York Times

"In the days before Christmas, as measles, whooping cough and influenza continued to spread and surge across the country, the Department of Health and Human Services came perilously close to scrapping the nation’s longstanding list of recommended childhood vaccines.

As CNN reported, the agency’s plan was to go with a shorter list, along the lines of what Denmark recommends. As Politico reported soon after, that plan was jettisoned at the last minute over legal and political concerns.

Sources in and around the department have since suggested that something far worse may still be in the offing. “They could still move to align us with a country like Denmark,” said Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s respiratory disease division. He resigned in August in protest of the agency’s politicization of vaccine policy. “But they could also just scrap the list altogether, so that there are no official recommendations, only vague suggestions.”

Either of those changes would be unconscionable. Among other things, the C.D.C. list, also known as the childhood vaccine schedule, helps determine which vaccines are covered by insurance, which are included in the Vaccines for Children Program that supplies crucial shots to the un- and underinsured, and which are protected from certain liabilities that might otherwise drive vaccine makers from the U.S. market. Altering those recommendations, or downgrading them to “shared clinical decision making,” would upend those protocols, and could make it nearly impossible for millions of families to receive certain lifesaving vaccines, even if they still want them.

However, neither move would be surprising.

In the 11 months since he was confirmed as health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has wreaked steady havoc on the nation’s vaccination policies and programs. He canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in federal investment for mRNA vaccines, including ones that would have improved our ability to fight the next flu pandemic. He chased away doctors and scientists at the Food and Drug Administration and the C.D.C. who oversaw federal vaccine policy for decades.

Perhaps worst of all, he fired the entire 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, known as ACIP. The group is responsible for advising the C.D.C. on which vaccines to recommend for whom. It now consists of a mix of ideologues and incompetents handpicked by Mr. Kennedy himself.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. 

Already, this new Potemkin group has:

  • Rescinded recommendations for any flu shots containing thimerosal, a preservative that keeps multidose vaccine bottles free of bacteria and other contamination. It has been in use for nearly a century and has decades’ worth of data validating its safety.

  • Revoked a longstanding recommendation of the measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox, or MMRV, combination vaccine for children younger than 4. The policy change is not based on any valid medical or scientific concern.

  • Stopped recommending Covid-19 vaccines for healthy people younger than 65 unless they talk to a health care provider, a move that makes it harder for people who want or need those shots to get them.

  • Changed the recommendations for hepatitis B vaccination from saying that all newborns should have this shot to one that might as well be a shrug emoji: new mothers who test negative should decide for themselves whether to have their babies vaccinated at birth, but might consider waiting.

None of these changes are evidence-based. All of them run counter to what the C.D.C.’s own experts (and most of the nation’s leading medical groups) have advised. And all are likely to sow confusion, undermine public trust and ultimately drive the nation’s vaccination rates down. “We are already hearing about pregnant women who test positive for Hep B deciding not to get the shot,” said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “Because the message they’re getting from that recommendation is that the vaccine itself is dangerous.”

Proponents of the push to align U.S. recommendations with those of so-called peer nations such as Denmark, Japan and Germany — all of which recommend fewer shots than the United States — have billed it as a common-sense corrective. But, as innumerable doctors and scientists have explained, when it comes to public health, countries with fewer shots on their must-have list are not actually our peers.

In Denmark, to take the administration’s favorite example, prenatal care is free and universal. More than 95 percent of pregnant women are screened for hepatitis B, and those who test positive are promptly treated and duly monitored. In Japan and in most European nations, primary care systems have the capacity to find and vaccinate children who face a higher risk for vaccine-preventable diseases — and in many of those countries, paid sick leave also helps minimize the spread of contagions through schools and offices.

None of this is true in the United States.

Here, nearly a quarter of pregnant women lack adequate prenatal care, and those who face the highest risk of contracting and spreading vaccine-preventable diseases are often the least likely to have access to doctors or pharmacies. When U.S. health officials tried to stamp out hepatitis B through vaccination programs aimed at high-risk groups, they failed miserably. It was not until they carried out a universal, at-birth vaccination policy in 1991 that hepatitis B infections finally plummeted — by about 99 percent.

In fact, if the U.S. public health system has one thing going for it relative to other nations, it’s probably vaccines. As the C.D.C.’s own data indicates, routine childhood vaccination has prevented hundreds of millions of illnesses and tens of millions of hospitalizations here. It has also saved half a trillion dollars in medical costs, a figure that jumps into the multitrillions once you factor in indirect, societal costs like lost productivity and lost wages.

The United States tends to have higher rates of measles vaccination than Europe, and fewer measles cases as a result. Compared with Denmark, we also tend to have lower hospitalization rates for rotavirus (which causes diarrhea and can be fatal in infants and children) and respiratory syncytial virus, or R.S.V. (which is a leading cause of hospitalization among children). The reason for those disparities is not in dispute: We vaccinate routinely against both viruses. Denmark does not.

Mr. Kennedy and his supporters have said repeatedly that parents should be able to decide for themselves whether to vaccinate their children. But the Trump administration’s actions have put the nation on course for a future where even those who want vaccines may not be able to get them.

“Anytime you move away from a clear, universal recommendation, implementation becomes more difficult,” said Dr. Fiona Havers, a vaccine expert who resigned from the C.D.C. in protest in June. Does insurance still have to cover a shot that falls under shared clinical decision making? Maybe. Can you still get it at the pharmacy? Not necessarily.

For now, health insurers have promised to continue covering vaccines, regardless of what the C.D.C. does or says, presumably because they understand that vaccinating people is far cheaper than letting them get sick. But consumers would have no obvious recourse if those insurers eventually changed their minds — and, in any case, that promise applies only to families that have commercial health insurance to begin with. About half of all American children rely instead on the federally funded Vaccines for Children Program — and that program falls squarely within the jurisdiction of Mr. Kennedy, our anti-vaxxer in chief.

If the C.D.C. does change the childhood schedule to resemble Demark’s, or scraps that schedule altogether, and if the health secretary decides to adjust the Vaccines for Children Program accordingly, about half of all American families could suddenly find themselves with no clear way to get essential vaccines — their best possible protection against a roster of devastating diseases, including rotavirus, R.S.V. and hepatitis B.

In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration is angling to make an even bigger and more enduring impact on Americans’ access to vaccines. After claiming, without presenting a shred of proof, that Covid vaccines played a role in the death of 10 children, top officials at the agency have proposed a roster of new requirements for the shots, including several that critics say would be logistically impossible and could leave us with no F.D.A.-approved Covid or flu vaccines.

That loss of approval would be disastrous, Dr. Daskalakis, Dr. Havers and others say. 

Changes to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program could also seriously undermine vaccine access. The program, which compensates people who suffer rare side effects from certain vaccines, was established in 1988 after a tidal wave of lawsuits threatened to drive vaccine makers from the American market. If Mr. Kennedy decides to exempt any shot that falls under the fuzzy rubric of “shared clinical decision making” from this program — and if nobody stops him — vaccine makers may once again threaten to leave the U.S. market.

Mr. Kennedy could also drive those companies away by adding autism to the list of conditions for which they are potentially liable. (Decades of research has debunked the assertion that vaccines cause autism. But Mr. Kennedy and his supporters have proved astoundingly impervious to that evidence.) “They will stop selling vaccines here,” Dr. Havers said. “And regardless of what ACIP says, regardless of what F.D.A. says, regardless of what your doctor says, and regardless of what you actually want, if companies don’t sell them, people can’t get them.”

We don’t have to wonder what that future will look like. We can glimpse it already in communities across the country where measles and whooping cough are resurgent and where infants and young children have already died from both. We can also see it foretold in the current flu season: This year’s flu vaccine has proved an imperfect match to the currently circulating strains. New shots, based on mRNA technology, would have one day enabled us to avoid this kind of misfire. But the nation’s leaders have imperiled that future with the decisions they made this year.

It should not surprise anyone that 2025 — when the nation’s most prominent anti-vaxxer rose to the highest health office in the land — is ending with our vaccine policies in disarray and our access to vaccines increasingly imperiled.

Mr. Kennedy has brought us to this precipice by aggressively subverting nearly every process and protocol that previously governed our public health institutions. He has granted political appointees enormous sway over agency scientists. He has excluded people with meaningful expertise from his planning and deliberations. And he has fired dissenters all the way up to the C.D.C. director and replaced them with lackeys, sycophants and wellness grifters.

The relentless norm-shattering is not just a byproduct of Mr. Kennedy’s larger plans; it is a central feature. Bureaucratic changes to arcane and acronym-laden programs are easy to overlook or forget after a brief flash of indignation, especially in a world saturated with bleak, worrisome headlines. But it’s through that overlooking that we may eventually lose vaccines altogether.

Vaccines are a triumph of human ingenuity, modern medicine and public health. With them, we have beaten back smallpox, chickenpox, yellow fever, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, Covid, meningitis and more. If Mr. Kennedy continues to force the nation down the course he’s now set, we will be left to explain to future generations how we came to abandon them.

Jeneen Interlandi, a staff writer at The New York Times Magazine and the Opinion section of The Times, writes about public health. @JInterlandi"

China Fires Rockets Near Taiwan in Display of Military Power

 

China Fires Rockets Near Taiwan in Display of Military Power

​

“China intensified military exercises near Taiwan, firing long-range rockets and deploying warships and aircraft. The drills, called “Justice Mission 2025,” aimed to demonstrate China’s ability to isolate and strike Taiwan, potentially blocking foreign intervention. The exercises also served as a warning to Taiwan and its potential allies, particularly Japan, about China’s military capabilities.

​

China’s military also sent warships and aircraft during a second day of exercises designed to show its ability to claim the democratic island.

China Holds Live-Fire Drills Around Taiwan
Beijing mobilized naval and air forces in its first major military exercise on all sides of Taiwan since April, state media showed.Adek Berry/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

China intensified military exercises near Taiwan on Tuesday, firing long-range rockets into waters around the island. The People’s Liberation Army also sent out new amphibious assault ships while its vessels and aircraft practiced repelling an approaching enemy force, displaying its ability to both strike and isolate the island.

Chinese long-range artillery units fired 27 rockets into waters to the north and southwest of Taiwan that China had earlier declared to be live-fire zones, Gen. Hsieh Jih-sheng, a Taiwanese defense official, told a news conference in Taipei. China’s main state broadcaster, CCTV, said that the Chinese units unleasheddozens of rockets that struck the sea to the north of the island.

China’s military said its destroyers, frigates and fighter-bombers operated in nearby areas, where they tested their ability to spot and attack enemy aircraft, ships and submarines. It warned ships and aircraft not involved in the drills to stay away from seven live-fire zones, which were to be in force until the evening.

Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense said 11 Chinese navy ships and eight coast guard vessels came within 24 miles of Taiwan’s coast, a zone within which Taiwan enforces its laws. The ministry said Taiwanese forces responded by issuing radio calls for them to leave.

The two-day exercises, called “Justice Mission 2025,” had started a day earlier, when Chinese bombers, fighter jets, warships, drones and missile units made a show of force that was accompanied by combative rhetoric and martial videos online. 

“In troop numbers these weren’t necessarily the largest, but the scope of the exercises grows ever larger,” Gen. Hsieh said. “I think the signal is very clear — that they see the Taiwan Strait as their internal waters,” he added.

China’s actions appeared intended as a warning that the People’s Liberation Army was honing its abilities to cut off Taiwan from any outside efforts to come to the island’s aid in a conflict, said Chieh Chung, a researcher at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research in Taipei, an organization supported by the Taiwanese ministry of defense.

Several of the exclusion zones “appear designed to block an advance toward Taiwan by Japanese Self-Defense Forces or U.S. forces stationed in Japan,” Mr. Chieh said in an interview. “The position and large scale of these zones project a stance saying ‘I will keep out foreign forces’.”

The exercises came after the administration of President Trump released details of more than $11 billion in proposed arms sales to Taiwan.

The rockets were fired by Chinese long-range artillery units on the coast of Fujian, the mainland province opposite Taiwan, and landed outside the 24-mile boundary, Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense said.

Taiwan’s coast guard said the Chinese units used PCH191 launchers, a nimble, relatively cheap weapon that China has made in larger numbers as an alternative to bigger, more costly missile launchers. China’s military released a video that also showed one of the launchers, which is pulled by a truck, firing a volley of ammunition, which the video said landed in a patch of sea off Taiwan. In a real war, Taiwan may have difficulty intercepting rockets launched from such mobile units, military experts have said.

“They can fire basically anywhere along the coast to range most, if not all, of Taiwan,” Joshua Arostegui, the research director of the China Landpower Studies Center at the U.S. Army War College and author of a paper about the PCH191 launcher, said in an earlier interview.

China’s military said it also sent amphibious assault ships, other warships and flying drones to the east of Taiwan, where their drills included “precision strike operations, and seizing and controlling key ports.” This is the direction from which the United States or its allies might approach in an attempt to defend Taiwan.

China’s leaders have for decades said that Taiwan is their country’s lost territory, and that they may use armed force if prospects for peaceful unification evaporate. Since 2022, China has staged six major exercises near Taiwan to demonstrate its anger at the island’s government, which has called Beijing a threat to the island’s democracy and self-rule.

A giant outdoor video screen on a city building at night shows a large military ship sailing in the sea.
A public screen in Beijing on Monday showed Chinese warships during a news broadcast on military drills around Taiwan.Maxim Shemetov/Reuters

The current exercises ended an eight-month stretch of relative calm in the Taiwan Strait. With the abrupt resumption of drills, China’s leader, Xi Jinping, is apparently offering a sharp reminder to Taiwan, its potential allies and a domestic audience of China’s own people that the People’s Liberation Army still stands ready to attack, if ordered.

“External forces have recently crossed the line repeatedly on the Taiwan issue, recklessly attempting to embolden and encourage ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces,” Zhang Xiaogang, a spokesman for China’s Ministry of National Defense, said in comments issued late on Monday.

The exercises came only a week after Mr. Xi appointed a new commander for the Chinese military’s Eastern Theater, the area that includes Taiwan, and appeared to be realistic training for a possible attack or blockade of the island, Ben Lewis, the founder of P.L.A. Tracker, a website that monitors Chinese military activities, said in an interview.

“It seemed to me that the Eastern Theater Command wanted to test and also demonstrate its ability to rapidly surge forces forward in order to, as they described, seize comprehensive control of sea and air domains,” Mr. Lewis said. “They were able to very quickly shift from their kind of routine posture to an exercise or an attack posture.”

China also may be trying to intimidate Japan, where the new prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, has indicated that her country could come to Taiwan’s aid if China attacked it, and has stood firm despite China’s warnings and boycotts.

Chinese leaders appeared to be trying to demonstrate “that Japan would and could do nothing” to defend Taiwan, said Yun Sun, the director of the China Program at the Stimson Center in Washington.

“I actually think the Japan angle is the primary driver of China’s decision on the military exercise,” she said. “China has backed itself into a corner by accepting nothing less than Takaichi’s formal withdrawal of her comment. That is not going to happen.”

Mr. Xi also appears to have calculated that two days of exercises will not disrupt relations with Mr. Trump ahead of a planned summit in April, several experts said. At the Beijing summit, Mr. Xi may try to persuade Mr. Trump to declare opposition to Taiwanese independence, or at least restate the longstanding U.S. position that it does not support moves toward independence, said Bonnie S. Glaser, the managing director of the Indo-Pacific program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

When asked about the exercises during a news conference on Monday, Mr. Trump appeared unperturbed.

“They’ve been doing that for 20, 25 years,” he said.

Chris Buckley, the chief China correspondent for The Times, reports on China and Taiwan from Taipei, focused on politics, social change and security and military issues.

Amy Chang Chien is a reporter and researcher for The Times in Taipei, covering Taiwan and China.“

Monday, December 29, 2025

Trump Just Bombed Nigeria — But Here’s the Truth They’re Not Telling You

Opinion | One of America’s Most Successful Experiments Is Coming to a Shuddering Halt - The New York Times

One of America’s Most Successful Experiments Is Coming to a Shuddering Halt

A woman in a sari walks down a grassy bank by a pond, with a large house in the background.
Indian immigrants in the United States have found success, and unexpected hostility.Miraj Patel for The New York Times

"It was a joyous day, the fulfillment of a quarter-century of hard work and relentless fund-raising. Srinivasachary Tamirisa, a retired doctor living in Sugar Land, Texas, beamed with pride as his dream — to erect a statue of the Hindu deity Hanuman on the grounds of a temple he had helped found — came to life.

A helicopter circled overhead, blanketing flower petals on the glittering likeness of the god, revered for his strength, selflessness and devotion to faith. Priests in white and saffron robes mounted a crane to anoint the 90-foot-tall statue and drape it with garlands of flowers. A crowd of hundreds gathered as both India’s national song, “Vande Mataram,” and “The Star-Spangled Banner” were played, a perfect encapsulation of Indian Americans’ easy blending into the mores of their adopted home even as many maintained their own traditions.

But just outside the temple walls, dozens of conservative Christian protesters gathered, castigating what they called “a demon god.” Local right-wing politicians seized on the topic. “Why are we allowing a false statue of a false Hindu God to be here in Texas? We are a CHRISTIAN nation,” a U.S. Senate candidate wrote on social media.

People mill around the base of a huge bronze-colored statue of a Hindu deity.
A 90-foot tall statue of the Hindu deity Hanuman stands on the grounds of a temple that has earned the enmity of conservative Christian protesters.Miraj Patel for The New York Times

Tamirisa, who emigrated to the United States from India as a young doctor 50 years ago, was stunned. He had built a life that seemed the epitome of the American ideal: a successful career as an OB-GYN, delivering about a dozen babies a month. He paid his taxes faithfully, raised his children in this tidy, affluent suburb of Houston, then sent them off to attend elite colleges and become doctors and investment bankers. He had proudly become a citizen. And this is how his adopted country repaid that devotion?

“I thought this was heaven on earth,” Tamirisa told me as we toured the temple grounds. Now, suddenly, his neighbors were taunting his faith and questioning his right to be an American. “The guys came here and said: This is a devil,” he told me. “This is not a devil; this is a guru, the teacher telling you to be fearless.”

These experiences have led him to question everything about his adopted home and wonder whether future generations of Indians should set their sights on a life in America. If he had his way, he’d return to India himself and live out his old age among old friends and family. But he’s staying to dote on his four grandchildren.

“It’s not the same,” he said. “Why am I here? I question that to myself.”

A man in saffron robes stands, holding his hands clasped in front of him.
Srinivasachary Tamirisa, a retired doctor in Sugar Land, Texas, helped found a Hindu temple.Miraj Patel for The New York Times

Amid an astonishing wave of anti-Indian animus, it’s a question many Indian Americans are asking. In its crudest form, mostly expressed on social media, this antipathy shows up as gutter racism and religious bigotry — an endless stream of invective declaring that Indians have low I.Q.s, worship devils, cheat their way into the country and commit terrible crimes. But it is fostered, in barely cloaked forms, by top Republican officials who accuse Indians of stealing American jobs.

“They engage in a lot of cheating on immigration policies that is very harmful to American workers,” Stephen Miller, the architect of President Trump’s hard-line immigration crackdown, declared on Fox News. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida referred to the H-1B visa program that allows highly skilled immigrants, many of them Indian tech workers, to come to the United States with their families as “chain migration run amok.” Many Indian Americans took umbrage when JD Vance, who is married to a Hindu daughter of Indian immigrants, expressed his hope that his wife would someday convert to Christianity.

It is a startling turn in one of the most successful migration experiments in modern history. Since 1965, when civil rights immigration law opened the United States to migrants from countries across the globe, hundreds of thousands of Indians have immigrated to the United States. No group has made a bigger success of its opportunity. Indian Americans’ median household income significantly outstrips that of white Americans overall; about three-quarters of Indian American adults have at least a college degree and many work in high-status, well-paying professions in places like Houston, New York and Silicon Valley.

In public life, Indian Americans have rocketed to prominence. They have led iconic American companies like Google, Microsoft and Pepsi, and are major players in culture and science — several have won a Nobel Prize. They are a growing political force in both parties, too: Three major candidates in the 2024 presidential election were of Indian ancestry. After decades of voting overwhelmingly for Democrats, last year Indian Americans, like many immigrant groups, seemed to swing right, making them a crucial sliver in the fragile coalition that elected Donald Trump.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. 

“I​​ndian Americans have really been, in many ways, the poster children for America’s legal skilled immigration regime,” Milan Vaishnav, the director of the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has studied Indian Americans and grew up in Houston, told me. “It’s hard to think of other groups that have been as wildly successful as Indians in America.”

Now, all of a sudden, six decades of mutually beneficial migration are coming to a shuddering halt. Most Americans have quite positive views of Indian Americans. But the combination of anti-Indian rhetoric and government visa policies — not least the chaos that has enveloped the H-1B visa — has already had a powerful chilling effect. Indians last year became the largest contingent of foreign students at American universities, but this year arrivals of Indian students fell by 44 percent.

Over the past decade, migration has become the biggest political fault line in much of the rich world. Fights over whether and how to welcome migrants, or how brutally they might be repulsed, have led to a surge in support for far-right parties in many countries and helped propel Trump back to the White House. Throughout, much of the focus has been on refugees and asylum seekers from troubled, impoverished nations and those who cross borders without authorization. But increasingly, right-wing parties are taking aim at legal, highly skilled migration too.

In a way, this makes sense. Vance and other Trump administration officials blame illegal immigration for just about every difficulty Americans face — the housing shortage, unemployment, inflation, health insurance premiums and more. But Americans face their stiffest competition for jobs and homes from immigrants here legally. Because voluntary migration is such a rare and self-selecting phenomenon — over 96 percent of the world’s people live in the country of their birth — Americans are often competing against the best educated and most ambitious people from countries across the globe.

This is especially true for India, home to 1.4 billion people. It has a formidable tradition of elite science, engineering and medical education, accessible only to those who can ace a pitiless gantlet of extremely competitive tests. For decades, the United States has welcomed those graduates, who have contributed much to American prosperity and been rewarded for it with handsome salaries and comfortable lives in the suburban idylls that typify the American dream.

But as that dream feels increasingly out of reach for many young Americans, stoking resentment at perceived outsiders who are actually achieving it makes for good, if cynical, politics. The turn against highly skilled legal immigrants, especially those who worship differently and have darker skin, was perhaps an inevitable escalation of Trump’s anti-immigration movement.

For America, though, the cost may be high. The United States has been profoundly changed by Indians coming to the country. It stands to reason it will be changed by their not coming, too.

For decades, Indian students with degrees in highly sought-after technical fields have followed a glide path to a life in the United States: win acceptance to a good American university, secure a student visa and, after graduating, find work at an American company. When Sai Sushma Pasupuleti arrived at the University of Houston in 2023 to pursue a doctorate in electrical engineering, that path was wide open.

Now, it is all but blocked. A couple of months ago, Pasupuleti attended a job fair at the university. She approached booth after booth, résumé in hand. But each representative asked one question: Are you a U.S. citizen? When she said she was not, they sent her away.

“I did a lot of hard work,” she said, crestfallen. “It’s crazy how they didn’t even look at my résumé.”

She had been a star student back home in Hyderabad, winning a prize for her master’s thesis at one of India’s prestigious institutes of technology. Her professors encouraged her to pursue a Ph.D. abroad, something she had never considered because she assumed that she could not afford it. Her parents had divorced when she was a young child and her mother, who works in sales at a pharmaceutical company, raised her on her own.

“We are lower middle class,” she told me. “My mom struggled a lot, but she sent me to the best school. She tried to give me the best education, and she always believed that education is what is going to feed us.”

She had hoped to go to Germany, a leader in cutting-edge electrical engineering, but did not get a scholarship. She was offered scholarships to universities in both Britain and the United States. America, she said, had a special allure.

“Whoever goes to the U.S., the person would be shaped into a leader and a technical expert,” she said. “Anyone who has done a higher degree from America is considered very skilled worldwide.”

With a job and visa seeming out of reach, she has been focusing on commercializing her research. Along with her adviser and fellow students, she has been developing a smaller, more versatile version of a pulse power converter — a heavy, expensive device used in research, medical and military settings, that sends powerful and precise jolts of electricity. Together, they are trying to start a company. But even if they succeed in raising money, Pasupuleti may still struggle to get a work visa to remain in the United States.

“The place where I landed is like a shaky ground,” she said. “I would like to find some secure place.” Perhaps, she said, she could find a job in Europe.

She doesn’t regret the decision to come to America and said that her degree will be valuable wherever she goes. But given how much this country has invested in her education, it is puzzling that it seems determined to send her away. Three of her fellow Ph.D. students are also from elsewhere — two from China and one from Ivory Coast, Pasupuleti told me.

That is not unusual. According to the National Science Foundation, foreign students have been awarded more engineering and computer science doctorates than have U.S. citizens and permanent residents for over two decades. Top programs usually include tuition and a stipend, so American universities are spending considerable sums educating engineers who may have no choice but to leave the country rather than build their careers in America.

“Obviously we’re all grateful for the scholarships, but if they don’t want us to work here,” Pasupuleti said, her voice trailing off. “I mean, I’m sure they have their reasons.”

As the world’s two largest democracies, the United States and India have had a surprisingly fraught relationship as nations. But as peoples, Americans and Indians have enjoyed a long, mutually fruitful engagement.

The Indian American writer Suketu Mehta describes this as a game of transcontinental Ping-Pong. First, the New England transcendentalists were inspired by the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads. Then, a young Indian lawyer in South Africa by the name of Mahatma Gandhi read Ralph Waldo Emerson, helping to inspire the movement for Indian independence. In turn, Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolent resistance influenced Martin Luther King Jr. during the American civil rights movement, which itself led to the opening of America to Indian immigrants, including Mehta and his parents.

“Every year since I came to this country in 1977, I felt more assured of my place in America,” Mehta told me. “And now for the first time, that’s been thrown into doubt.”

A number of Indian Americans in his circle have been applying for status as overseas citizens of India, which gives people of Indian descent the right to live permanently in India and a backup plan should things truly go awry in the United States. Racialization has come as a rude shock.

But Mehta also wondered whether Indian Americans had become a bit smug about their spectacular success in America over the past six decades, trusting that their wealth and status would shield them from the kind of bigotry that once barred them from entry and citizenship. Indian Americans, he said, tell themselves: “We are the richest, best educated people. We don’t commit crimes. We go to good schools. We came here legally. We’re not like the Mexicans.”

Mehta finds this exceptionalism both understandable and dangerous. The Indians who come to the United States are not just the most ambitious and educated. They also are mostly the beneficiaries of the durable hierarchies of caste, class and religion that stratify Indian life.

“If Indians are so great, what explains India?” he quipped.

India is changing, too. It is the world’s fastest-growing major economy, home to the world’s biggest population and an important consumer market. Given the demographic challenges the West faces, India will continue to be an important source of human talent. But it will increasingly become a consumer of it, too. In just the past few months, for example, American tech giants have announced a combined $67.5 billion in new investments in India. As foreign countries compete for opportunities, highly educated Indians will have options.

In time, it will be little wonder if a graduate from a top Indian university finds employment at home more appealing than the volatility of U.S. visa policy and the barrage of anti-Indian sentiment on offer here. One-fifth of all migrants worldwide are born in India. But despite the country’s many problems, Indians are unusually averse to leaving — only about 1 percent of Indians live outside India, a third of the global average.

Arguments in favor of migration tend to focus either on its economic benefits or its moral claim on the American psyche. But from the nation’s founding these two have been intertwined in ways both productive and confounding. Over the past year, as I’ve written about migration across the globe, I have often asked opponents of migration whether they would prefer to live in a country people flee from or flee toward. The answer, invariably, is the latter. The recent surge in support for immigration reflects, I suspect, that America’s status as the destination of choice for the world’s best minds is an intense source of pride.

It is also a source of strength. Trump clearly prefers the menacing snarl of hard power, but America’s openness to the world’s most ambitious people — and its unique ability to absorb and make use of human talent — has perhaps been its most potent form of soft power. Why try to defeat the world’s richest country when you might have the chance to join it and reap its ample rewards?

That is not the Trump administration’s way of thinking. For all the talk about abolishing D.E.I. in favor of merit, it seems to believe that for Americans to compete with the best of the world, merit must be redefined in nationalist terms, if not entirely set aside. Its National Security Strategy said so explicitly.

“Should merit be smothered, America’s historic advantages in science, technology, industry, defense and innovation will evaporate,” the document states. However, it continues, “we cannot allow meritocracy to be used as a justification to open America’s labor market to the world in the name of finding ‘global talent’ that undercuts American workers.” Trumpism seems to be seeking a form of talent autarky.

This is a radical change, and one that will surely leave the United States poorer, weaker and more isolated. I cannot help but detect in these nativist outbursts against Indian immigrants and their descendants a profound loss of confidence. The protesters repulsed by the towering Hanuman statue saw it as a threat to their culture, religion and traditions. But to me, that glittering hulk of alloyed metal symbolizes something else: the enduring magnetism of America’s promise, tarnished though it may be."

Opinion | One of America’s Most Successful Experiments Is Coming to a Shuddering Halt - The New York Times

Grim Evidence of Trump’s Boat Strikes Washes Ashore on a Colombian Peninsula - The New York Times

Grim Evidence of Trump’s Airstrikes Washes Ashore on a Colombian Peninsula


(Trump is a murderer, plain and simple and no decent person can deny it!)


"First came the scorched boat. Then the mangled bodies. Then the packets with traces of marijuana. Now, fishermen fear the ocean that feeds them.

A thunderous boom rang out through the windless late-afternoon air. Seconds later, smoke began rising out of the sea as if the horizon were on fire.

Watching from the shore on Nov. 6, Erika Palacio Fernández whipped out her phone, she said, unwittingly recording the only verified and independent video known to date of the aftermath of an airstrike in the Trump administration’s campaign against what it calls “narco-terrorists.”

Two days later, on that same shore, a scorched 30-foot-long boat itself would wash up. Then, two mangled bodies. Then charred jerrycans, life jackets and dozens of packets that were observed by The New York Times and were similar to others that have been found after anti-narcotics operations in the region. Most packets were empty, though traces of a substance that looked and smelled like marijuana were found in the lining of a few.

The assortment of singed flotsam appears to be the first physical evidence of the U.S. campaign, which has destroyed 29 vessels and killed more than 100 people in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Every other struck boat is presumed to have sunk along with its crew and cargo. The U.S. military has offered no evidence that the boats it has destroyed were transporting illicit substances or belong to criminal networks.

A dark, broken boat sits on a sandy beach near the water's edge. An orange sky with dark clouds hangs over the ocean.
Remains of a burned boat on the beach near Puerto López on the Guajira Peninsula in Colombia.

A Times analysis matched the wreckage of the boat to the one in a video posted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the night of Nov. 6, hours after Ms. Palacio took her video. Mr. Hegseth described the strike as having targeted a vessel in the Caribbean operated by an unnamed “designated terrorist organization.” He said the strike killed three people and took place in international waters.

Territorial waters

guAjira

peninsula

Gulf of 

Venezuela

The Times analysis of Ms. Palacio’s video indicates the strike took place in the Gulf of Venezuela, where Colombia and Venezuela have long disputed their maritime boundary. The analysis could not determine the exact location of the strike.

Video Captures Aftermath of U.S. Airstrike on Boat Off Venezuela
A resident on the Guajira Peninsula in Colombia captured a large plume of black smoke rising from the Gulf of Venezuela. The video, in which a ringtone plays in the background, is the only known independent footage of the aftermath of U.S. military strikes on boats the Trump administration says are smuggling drugs.Erika Palacios Fernández

The shape of the wreckage, a slender design typical of speedboats, matches that of the boat targeted in the video shared by the Defense Department, the Times analysis found, and shows damage to the boat’s hull and interior structure consistent with the impact of an airstrike. The military video shows the boat exploding and on fire beneath a large plume of smoke.

That such rare, tangible evidence is coming to light nearly two months after the early November strike is a testament both to the remoteness of the Guajira Peninsula, where the wreckage was found, and the lack of a sizable presence of the Colombian state in the area. The region is governed semiautonomously by an Indigenous community, the Wayuu, whose more than half a million people straddle the border between Colombia and Venezuela.

The U.S. military’s campaign against boats that the Trump administration claims are smuggling drugs has shifted largely to the Pacific since November. The Nov. 6 strike off the Guajira Peninsula took place during an earlier phase, when the campaign seemed to be aimed at Venezuelan, rather than Colombian, vessels.

A wide range of legal experts say the U.S. strikes are illegal because the military is prohibited from deliberately targeting civilians, even if they are believed to have committed a crime, unless they pose an immediate threat. Venezuela plays a smaller role in the global drug trade than other countries in the region. In private, Trump administration officials say their main goal is to drive Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, from power.

The arid Guajira Peninsula is South America’s northernmost jut of land, and has long been known as a smuggler’s launchpad for various contraband, from coffee to electronics to illicit drugs. Reaching it by land requires traversing a labyrinth of rutted dirt tracks that are entirely unmarked, making passage without a local guide impossible. Vultures prowl the sky and rattlesnakes hide in the scrub.

The speedboat’s wreckage and then the two bodies were found on Nov. 8 by fishermen who called Aristótele Palmar García, a Wayuu police inspector responsible for that stretch of beach. Mr. Palmar said he has little training or tools and when he arrived on the beach he had medical gloves only because his sister worked at a local clinic.

“The boat itself smelled like burned meat,” Mr. Palmar, 31, recalled. “And the bodies — we had to bury them because the vultures and stray dogs were beginning to eat them.”

He said he called the regional police, “but nothing happened for days, or even weeks.”

One body had been reduced to skin and bones, Mr. Palmar said. He described the other as bloated, sun bleached and significantly burned, with no ears and one arm severed at the elbow.

Mr. Palmar said he and local fishermen used sticks to push the remains toward five-foot-deep graves they had dug on the beach. In keeping with Wayuu tradition, they sprinkled chirrinchi, a local liquor distilled from cane, over the graves. Then they laid thorny cactus over them to keep dogs from digging them up.

The regional director of Medicina Legal, which is Colombia’s national government-run network of forensic laboratories, Erika Patricia Vargas Sánchez, told The Times that the remains of two people had been disinterred from the same area described by Mr. Palmar and were transferred into Medicina Legal’s custody in the city of Barranquilla on Dec. 16 and 17, five weeks after they washed ashore. She said an autopsy had not yet been performed on either body.

The plastic packets that washed up in Castilletes, a beach community a few miles south of the wreckage that sits right on the Venezuelan border, left locals confused. Most of those seen by Times journalists who traveled to the area had been partly burned or melted and were empty except for sand. They were reinforced with packing tape and appeared to have had labels that had faded. 

Several packets had traces of marijuana inside their lining, including a packet that was lodged inside a burned life vest. An official with Colombia’s anti-narcotics police in the capital, Bogotá, who asked to remain anonymous because she was not authorized to speak with the press, said neither she nor counterparts in La Guajira whom she had spoken to had any knowledge of the packets.

Experts on the local drug trade said smuggling marijuana and cocaine together was common on the Guajira Peninsula and in other areas along Colombia’s coastline. Transporting the two drugs together, they said, often indicated that the smugglers were operating on a smaller scale, rather than as part of large cartels. At least half a dozen interdictions of smuggling boats by the Colombian authorities in the past year have found both drugs, according to local news reports.

“The cocaine and marijuana market in La Guajira is operated by small community-based ventures as much as it is by armed groups,” said Estefanía Ciro, who leads a Colombian research institute studying narcotics trafficking. “This narrative of cartels, of Pablo Escobar, doesn’t allow us to see that in many places this is everyday life. One day they carry marijuana, another cocaine, another fish.”

Most people in La Guajira, however, are not tied to the drug trade, but instead fish and herd livestock for a living. Mexi Misael Rincón, a fisherman, uses a boat nearly identical to the vessel struck on Nov. 6 that was anchored just a few yards from where the wreckage lay on the beach. Since the attack, he has dared to venture only into shallow waters, where he traps lobster.

Mr. Rincón’s mother, Carmelena González, 76, said that since the boat strike four of her other sons, who also fish, had left Guajira for distant urban centers to find other ways to make money. That’s in part because fish essential to making a living are farther out.

“In normal times we’d go out eight, 10, 12 miles for the tuna that fetches a better price,” said Vicente Fernández, another fisherman from the area, and uncle to Ms. Palacio, who took the video of the strike’s aftermath. “We’ve left our nets out there for weeks because we’re too afraid to retrieve them.”

Mr. Fernández said the price of seafood in the local markets had plummeted because locals, owing to superstitions, were afraid of consuming any animal that might have eaten human flesh. 

Nor, he added, was he going to risk sailing farther than a few miles from shore. He said that in the weeks since the November strike, he’d occasionally seen drones flying above his boat.

“They look like avioncitos,” he said, using a colloquial term for little airplanes. “They look like birds tracking down prey.”

Remains of a burned boat on the beach near Puerto López on the Guajira Peninsula in Colombia.

Max Bearak is a reporter for The Times based in Bogotá, Colombia.

Christiaan Triebert is a Times reporter working on the Visual Investigations team, a group that combines traditional reporting with digital sleuthing and analysis of visual evidence to verify and source facts from around the world."

Grim Evidence of Trump’s Boat Strikes Washes Ashore on a Colombian Peninsula - The New York Times