Elizabeth Beggan Portfolio

President Donald Trump filed for defamation against The New York Times and four of their reporters on Monday, Sept 15. Trump accused the New York Times for defaming him ahead of the 2024 election, stating that a series of articles were seeking to undermine his candidacy as well as trivializing his otherwise successful businessman reputation. 

The $15 billion defamation lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against some of the Times most prominent reporters: Susanne Craig, Russ Beuttner, Micheal S. Schmidt, and Peter Baker. The lawsuit was targeting articles as well as the book, “The Lucky Loser” written by Susanne Craig and Russ Beuttner and published by Penguin Random House. Its written content includes arguments that advocate for the idea that Trump built his fortune and reputation through fraud. 

Trump stated that the articles and book by the Times own were “specifically designed to try and damage President Trump’s business, personal and political reputation.”

A representative for the Times responded to the lawsuit: “This lawsuit has no merit. It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting. The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists’ First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people.” 

The complaint pointed out three specific articles that encouraged his argument, of “ a pattern of falsehoods and defamation.” 

The first article was adapted from the book written by Craig and Beuttner, stating that producers of Trump’s tv show “The Apprentice,” helped fuel his rise to presidency. Trump also referred to anecdotes in “Lucky Loser” and from a book by the complaints niece, Mary L. Trump that was found in an article written by Baker in Oct. of 2024. Baker wrote in his article, “how no major party presidential candidate had been accused of wrongdoing so many times.” 

Another article was highlighted by Shmidt, an interview with John F. Kelly, the former U.S. Marine Corps general and a chief of staff during Trump’s first term. The content of the article included Kelly warning that Trump “might rule like a dictator if he were re-elected.” Kelly also shed to light Trump’s previous statement concerning the American soldiers who died on battlefields as “suckers and “losers.” Trump has since then denied said comments. 

The Times is not the only news organization falling victim to Trump’s strong craving for lawsuits. 

“The lawsuit against The Times is the latest in a series of legal actions taken by Mr. Trump against news outlets. He sued over the editing of a report on the CBS News program “60 Minutes,” resulting in a $16 million settlement with the network’s parent company, Paramount, in July. Last year, ABC News agreed to settle a defamation suit brought by Mr. Trump for $15 million, plus $1 million for his legal fees, over remarks made in an interview by the anchor George Stephanopoulos.” writes the New York Times regarding the ongoing lawsuit. 

President Trump has also sued the Wall Street Journal in July, following an article published that stated he had sent a lewd birthday greeting to Jeffery Epstein in 2003.

Following his lawsuit, Trump has not shied away from taking his stance to social media. He has continuously posted statements claiming: “The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW!” and  “The ‘Times’ has engaged in a decades-long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole,” Trump posted.

The lawsuit against the New York Times cited more than a dozen articles regarding Trump dating back from his first term in office. Trump has been open about his stance on the New York Times, and that he was “proud” to hold them accountable for his malicious and false portrayals. He also referred to the success of his previous lawsuits against Paramount and ABC settlements. 

Judge Steven D. Merryday has been appointed for the case, previously appointed by former President George H.W Bush.

The political landscape of NYC politics is constantly shifting – especially now. Citizens across New York are highly anticipating this year’s unexpected general mayoral election in November. Fueled by steadfast electorates, bids from celebrated politicians, and a progressive insurgency – it’s no surprise that what was once a conventional election has shifted into one of the most unpredictable races in decades.

On June 24, Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani surpassed the former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the mayoral primary. Conducted through the city’s ranked-choice voting system, the numbers against Cuomo marked a crucial turning point that set the tone for the rest of the election for the progressive wing of the party. Mamdani’s supporters showcased a growing appetite for his bold policy shifts on affordable housing and public safety. 

“We will remake this great city not in my image but in the image of every New Yorker who has only known struggle. In New York, the power belongs to the people,” Mamdani told City & State.

Mamdani approached his campaigns with a grassroots strategy – leaning on community organization, outreach across all boroughs as well as gaining prospective interest from younger voters and unrepresented communities. The win for Mamdani disrupted what many assumed would be Cuomo’s path of reclaiming political prominence for NYC.

Succeeding his loss in the primary, Andrew Cuomo has re-entered the race as an independent – but not alone. His juggernaut campaign narrowed in on his excessive political experience, fundraising operations and his well-known reputation. Along with Cuomo, former Mayor Eric Adams has also registered as an independent for the race despite his decline in popularity following his indictment on corruption charges. 

The standoff between Cuomo, Adams and Mamdani has escalated the typical election into new territory. Political analysts have spoken out about the dynamics of the ranked-choice voting system, claiming that the debut of two prominent independents (Adams and Cuomo) could fracture longstanding political affiliations. 

Voters are now wondering not only who will win, but if they’re witnessing a historic political reposition in New York. 

Cuomo and Adams have spoken out against many of Mamdani’s goals for NYC, which include rent control and policing. 

“Rent-stabilized apartments when they’re vacant should only be rented to people who need affordable housing, not people like Zohran Mamdani,” Cuomo told reporters in a video posted on social media.

“We must remember that Andrew Cuomo has spent more time talking about my apartment than asking why so many New Yorkers are being forced out of theirs. He has spent more time criticizing me than he has in criticizing the legislation that Donald Trump has passed,” Mamdani replied.

As November approaches, voter turnout will determine the new mayor – every neighborhood and borough playing an impactful role. The election has transformed into more than a traditional campaign between candidates; it is a plain judgment on the city’s direction, priorities and values. This race highlights the ever-changing political landscape in the city that never stops debating its future with every vote counting. 

Donald Trump has taken office once again as America’s 47th president. Trump’s immediate agenda was to transform the federal government with a stronger conservative approach. 

In the early hours of entering the White House, President Trump did not hesitate to sign multiple executive orders publicly. Some of these orders are already facing court challenges.

AI innovation, abortion, taxes, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and immigration are just a handful of topics affected by his executive orders. President Trump has signed more executive orders in a week than the last 15 presidents, or compared to his past presidency when he only signed four. 

The statement “build a wall” has been a part of President Trump’s campaign since 2016, openly trying to reduce illegal immigration into the United States. Immigration has always been a big part of his campaign, therefore, it is no surprise that it is one of the first orders he signed.

President Trump narrowed his focus to immigration, with promises of mass deportation, restrictions on asylum access and impenetrable borders. Not only is he targeting undocumented immigrants, but also those protected under programs such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Temporary Protected Status and Deferred Enforced Departure. 

“It’s so scary and causes so much fear. I hope that information about [immigrants’] rights against ICE are accessible to everyone,” said Yetlanezi Cruz ‘26. 

When asked about how she feels about President Trump’s current ICE raids, Dorian Lazzara ‘26 stated, “It will eventually trickle down to us, it’s scary that he is our leader.”

President Trump has been open about his goals concerning imposing tariffs on imports coming from China, Canada and Mexico. All three countries have responded to President Trump. “This is a choice that, yes, will harm Canadians, but beyond that it will have real consequences for you, the American people,” said Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of Canada. “If President Trump wants to usher in a new golden age for the United States, the better path is to partner with Canada — not to punish us.” 

Along with his foreign policy focus, he also issued several executive orders to put an end to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs.

Federal and contractor employees use these programs to not only protect themselves but to also avoid discrimination. With every applicant, it ensures that each one has an equal opportunity to be considered for the job at hand.

Not only did he end numerous DEI programs, but also many that protect and extend civil rights. The order titled “Ending Racial and Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing” required all DEI federal staff to be placed on paid leave and eventually laid off. Instead, he proposed a “Merit, Excellence and Intelligence” approach to workplace hires, believing that hiring should be solely based on qualifications and ability.  

President Trump has only been in office for a few weeks and is already paving the way for sweeping change through his term. His moves reflect his commitment to his conservative agenda, sparking controversy and confusion. 

When searching through the aisles for male contraceptives, the eye immediately goes to the stacks upon stacks of condoms. Condoms are the most common and reasonable contraceptive for the male. For years, men have escaped “the pill”. “The Pill”, a daily medication used to prevent pregnancy, is a well-known controceptive designed for females, and not necessarily males. 

Women also have the responsibility to pay and consume the pill while men go along care free from that burden. It has also been proved again and again that the pricing of women contraceptives are much more expensive. Not only does the pill take a financial toll, but also a physical one. 

Physical symptoms for women can range widely with different medicines. It is about time that we realize that men get the easy way out in the world of contraceptives. Not only has society realized this, but also doctors. It is only fair that scientists dip their toe into making a better variety for male contraceptives. 

We ask ourselves, what about men? Why don’t men need to set the alarm to remind them to take the pill? Why is the pill playing field uneven? With modern medicine at our disposal, it is no surprise that doctors have been working to expand the male birth control options. .

“Scientists have been trying for decades to develop an effective male oral contraceptive, but there are still no approved pills on the market,” says Scientist Abdullah Al Noman from research being presented to the American Chemical Society (ACS) on male birth control pills. Doctors conducting the same research found the majority of drugs in clinical trials now work by inhibiting the male sex hormone testosterone, although this could have negative consequences like weight gain, depression and an increase in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. 

To avoid these side effects for men, and make it a non-hormonal pill, doctors have found a protein that could discriminate against the complexity of the pill. Researchers in the study by the ACS have closely examined different types of proteins such as retinoic acid receptor alpha (RAR-α). This acid receptor is a form of vitamin A that contributes to cell growth, sperm formation and embryonic development. 

The ACS report that from this study, injecting this vitamin into the mouse completely dismisses the ability to create sperm without any apparent side effects. On the other hand, scientists have discovered an oral compound that includes all of the RAR trio, which would cause reversible sterility. 

Within the RAR trio, the compound YCT529 was prominent in reducing the amount of sperm produced. When given to the mice for four weeks, the YCT529 effectively minimized the sperm count and was 99% effective in preventing pregnancies. Once the mice have stopped taking the oral contraceptive, their sperm was back to normal within 4-6 weeks. The researchers for this pill are confident in the effectiveness of the oral contraceptive and hope to release the pill by 2024.

But what does this mean for women and the progression of birth control methods? It is easy to say that since we are working on a male oral contraceptive that the pill playing field is even, but the truth is, it took way too long and is far from being even. Women’s birth control has ranged from inserts, shots, pills, tubes, while men just have condoms. The formation of this new pill does give the other team some points in terms of playing even. Although it is not completely ready to use, I am thankful that they are taking steps to broaden the horizon of male contraceptives.