News for Normies: Vol. 18
Iranians die for democracy; Supreme Court hears arguments on trans girls and women in sports; and two big ICE updates in Minnesota
Hello and welcome back to News for Normies!
If you’re new to the ‘stack, here’s a little more about what you’ll find in News for Normies, the serious part of this otherwise-lighthearted space.
News for Normies comes every Monday and is a post on three important news stories, served up with context, insight and some things to follow in the coming week.
Who are you? A normal person who has a whole life to live, and not a lot of time to read or watch news.
What is this? Your go-to newsletter that highlights a few big stories to keep you a little more informed in an ever-saturated news world.
So if you want to know what’s happening in the world but don’t have the time to monitor the headlines, you’re in the right place.
Today, an update on protests in Iran; the Supreme Court hears arguments about if trans women and girls belong on female sports teams; and two big ICE updates.
Let’s get your week started with some simple, thoughtful, and unbiased info. Please share with a fellow news-loving friend!
Story 1: Who Will Help? Iranian Citizens Continue to Push for Freedom but Regime Cracks Down Further
Reports say Iranian protests are losing steam as Iranian security forces continue to brutally crack down on citizens.
Already thousands of Iranians are dead and thousands more are injured, as civilians continue to take to the streets in nationwide protests against the brutal theocratic reign of the Islamic Republic.
Exact numbers of victims brutally killed by the regime are hard to determine, as leaders have cut internet to their citizens in an effort to control the narrative and hide their brutal tactics, but one report says over 16,000 people have already been killed.
Context and Background
This current wave of protests sparked on December 28, 2025, and originally officially centered around Iran’s tanking economy and collapsing currency. Ire quickly spread to the top, though, with Iranian citizens placing the blame for not only the failing economy but also the attack on citizens’ rights squarely on the shoulders of the Islamic Regime and Iran’s Supreme Leader.
The regime’s response has been, in a word, brutal. Multiple reports of people being shot at point blank range have emerged; injured people are piling into hospitals seeking medical treatment; and bodies are reportedly piling up in cemeteries.
Will Trump step in?
While President Trump said early last week that “help is on its way” and his press secretary even said outright the U.S. is “unafraid to use military force on Iran,” the U.S. has made no military moves. Multiple reports say that several military options have been presented to Trump.
So, what are Iranians saying about the U.S. potentially getting involved? Some reports say both Iranians in the country as well as in the diaspora would welcome U.S. military intervention, as it’s likely the only way to finally oust the regime.
Remember: There’s no way to accurately poll Iranians living in the country as Iran is an authoritarian state with an extensive surveillance apparatus that is known to quash dissent among its people.
What to Follow
Possible U.S. military involvement: Will Trump go from rhetoric to action? Also keep an eye out for the repositioning of military assets, which could indicate potential U.S. involvement.
Updated numbers on deaths and injuries: The number of deaths reported has ranged from just over 3,000 to up to 16,000; but no matter the exact number there’s no doubt the regime is brutalizing its people for protesting against it. I’ve been personally keeping an eye on this Instagram account for updates.
How long will the blackout last? The regime has blocked internet access for its people, which serves the purpose of both preventing them from communicating to mobilize together, and preventing the world at large from realizing the scale of the atrocities they’re committing. Look to see how Starlink and other services can help (not everyone has the equipment to receive a satellite signal), and how long the regime keeps its people in the literal, and figurative, dark.
Story 2: Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trans Participation in Sports
Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments that challenge two current state laws in Idaho and West Virginia.
Those laws restrict the rosters of girls’ sports teams to only girls who are biologically female, or in advocate-speak you may have heard before, people “assigned female at birth.”
The oral arguments wrapped up last week, but the conversations about what this ruling could mean will continue until the Supreme Court rules, so let’s dig into what’s at stake.
Context and Background
Two challengers brought this case to the nation’s highest court—Lindsay Hecox, a former college student from Idaho, and Becky Pepper-Jackson (“BPJ”), a teenager from West Virginia.
Currently, in those states as well as multiple others, trans girls can not participate in designated girls’ sports teams.
Hecox filed a lawsuit against Idaho when seeking to try out for the Boise State University track and cross country teams. 15-year-old “BPJ” has been staving off male puberty with hormone therapy and who has identified as female since third grade. Read more on both athletes here.
What’s at the heart of this all?
Central to these hearings is the question of, do these bans amount to unconstitutional sex discrimination?
Those who believe trans women are women say yes; those who believe trans women are trans women (and not biological women) say no.
Expect to hear lawyers for the trans athletes say that their clients (and other trans athletes nationwide) are being treated unconstitutionally by being excluded.
Expect to hear lawyers supporting the bans say that separating sports by biological sex is not discriminatory, but rather a permissible way to maintain fairness and competition in sports.
The reason this won’t be an easy ruling
The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether these states’ laws banning trans girls from girls’ and women’s sports teams are constitutional. As we just mentioned, these laws currently exist in about half the states in the U.S.
Add to that, the issue is complicated as both sides are using Title IX as a hook in their argument, and the Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on Title IX, as it relates to defining “sex.” (A clip circulating this weekend shows an OB/GYN refusing to answer if men can get pregnant at a Congressional hearing.)
Title IX is a law that says schools cannot discriminate based on sex; it’s widely considered a landmark ruling that elevated girls’ and women’s sports, forcing schools to allocate resources and effort comparable to boys’ sports.
Here’s how you might see Title IX arguments used to support each side:
Those in support of a potential ban say that allowing trans girls (biological boys) to participate in girls’ sports violates the principles of this law, which call for equal rights and resources (in this case, in sports) for female athletes.
Those against a potential ban say that not allowing trans girls into girls’ sports violates trans girls’ rights.
Why should you care?
The Supreme Court’s decision could set a nationwide precedent on how Title IX applies to transgender athletes.
The ruling won’t just impact what happens in the states named in the case, but could also influence how other states interpret and enforce Title IX.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court justices will now discuss draft their opinions based on what they heard in oral arguments. They will not hear any further arguments, but can request more information or briefs.
Justices will then vote internally and draft and circulate both the majority, and dissenting, opinion. They’ll then likely issue their formal ruling before their summer break, which would be late June or early July.
What to Follow
How narrow will the Court’s ruling be? Will the ruling address Idaho and West Virginia specifically, or issue a broader ruling that impacts other states?
Continued state vs. federal law battles: No matter what the Supreme Court rules, state challenges to the new law could continue, though they’d be limited in scope of impact.
How will athletic bodies respond? The NCAA already changed its rules to say that only “athletes assigned female at birth” could participate on women’s sports teams. If the Supreme Court ruling leaves room for any gray areas, they may have to reevaluate their position.
Will the Supreme Court leave room for exemptions? If the court does not issue a broad ruling, it could leave room for case-by-case exemptions, including for trans female students who could “prove” they don’t retain a competitive advantage.
Story 3: Two Big Updates on the Minnesota ICE Protests
Two big updates to the protests happening in Minneapolis surrounding the ICE raids:
On Friday, a federal judge ruled that ICE officers can no longer pepper spray or detain protestors who aren’t obstructing authorities during operations.
The ruling, from District Judge Katherine Hernandez (nominated by President Biden), means officers can’t retaliate against anyone who is peacefully observing or peacefully protesting agents at the scene of an operation. It also stipulates agents may not stop drivers unless they’re actively interfering with immigration enforcement.
The Justice Department is also reportedly opening an investigation into Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Frey, and Minnesota governor Tim Walz, for conspiring to impede on ICE operations in Minneapolis. No subpoenas have been issued, though, and as of this weekend it remains unclear what investigative steps have been taken.
Context and Background
Let’s talk about the federal judge’s ruling on ICE officers first. It comes after a surge in ICE presence in Minneapolis which initially started in reaction to a federal investigation into potential widespread welfare fraud.
Tensions between local leaders and federal ICE agents hit a boiling point last week, though, when an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good at the scene of an operation.
The agent’s conduct is now officially under review, and Good’s partner is also under investigation for potentially impeding the actions of the officers on the scene.
What the Left is saying about the surge in ICE raids:
U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), told CBS News, “It's not necessary in a moment when we are trying to deal with a serious problem that needs serious people to be able to address it,” saying the Trump administration has sown “confusion and chaos” through the increase in ICE activity.
What the Right is saying about the surge in ICE raids:
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the deadly shooting would not deter ICE from their mission, saying in the immediate aftermath of Good’s death: “We’re sending more officers … there’ll be hundreds more, in order to allow our ICE and our Border Patrol individuals that are working in Minneapolis to do so safely.”
As for regular Americans, Republican voters said in a recent poll (taken before Good’s death, it should be noted) remain generally supportive of Trump, but remain divided on whether or not ICE agents should try harder to avoid hurting people.
Meanwhile, President Trump himself seemed to strike a gentler tone last Wednesday about the deadly ICE shooting involving Renee Good than he did in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, saying the incident was, “sad to see on both sides.”
And regarding whether or not the agent was correct to use deadly force, he said, “I don't get into right or wrong. I know that it was a tough situation to be in.”
How do Trump’s deportations compare with past Presidents’?
As far as the numbers stack up, deportations under President Trump are actually running consistent with what President Biden oversaw in the last two years of his term, and overall trending similar to both Presidents Biden and Obama:
While President Trump’s immigration enforcement moves have by far earned the most national (and negative) attention, it was in fact President Obama who earned the nickname “Deporter in Chief” for his policies that saw the deportation of, according to some estimates, 3.1 million people.
While it’s hard to compile data on deportations, as some estimates include only formal removals and others add voluntary departures, the broad consensus on the totals for the past three Presidents are:
Obama (two terms): 3.1 to 5.3 million
Trump (first term): Just over 2 million
Biden (one term): 4.67 million
Now let’s talk about the investigation into Walz and Frey
No doubt central to the investigation into Walz and Frey is both men’s public criticisms of the federal immigration enforcement operations under Trump.
The administration believes Mayor Frey and Governor Walz stoked the flames of unrest in the immediate aftermath of Good’s death, when Frey said, in part, at a news conference:
“There's little I can say again that'll make this situation better, but I do have a message for our community, for our city, and I have a message for ICE. To ICE, get the fuck out of Minneapolis. We do not want you here. Your stated reason for being in this city is to create some kind of safety and you are doing exactly the opposite. People are being hurt. Families are being ripped apart.”
It should be noted that Frey also said at that same presser:
“Let's show up with peace. To march, to protest, to hug one another, to love all the way with peace. Do not give them what they want.”
Read the full transcript of what he said here.
What’s this all about, anyway?
Walz and Frey, for their parts, have said this investigation is evidence of Trump weaponizing the judicial system to target his enemies, citing other recent lawsuits the administration has brought against Democratic lawmaker Elissa Slotkin and Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
The administration has made no official statements yet about the expected investigation.
What to Follow
Potential challenges to the new rules for ICE: Will DHS or the federal government appeal the injunction?
Potential changes to ICE tactics: Will agents immediately adopt the new procedures?
More injunctions? Will other jurisdictions impose similar restrictions on ICE agents?
A statement from Trump on the Walz/Frey investigation: What will be the official reasoning the administration gives for the investigation?
Defining “obstruction”: If the case proceeds to formal charges and testimony, what will be determined about what constitutes obstruction?
If objective, nuanced news makes you smile, can I ask you a small favor?
Please consider forwarding this newsletter to a friend who wants to be a little more informed, without losing their sanity.
Every Monday I drop into your inbox with three news stories—that’s it—to make you smarter, more informed, and more able to engage in conversation about what’s happening in the world.
If the mission of simple, unbiased news appeals to you, I’m grateful for a forward to a friend, a click on the heart icon below, or anything else. Thanks so much for helping me to grow this community.