Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Friday unapologetically stood by his first-day move to revoke his predecessor Eric Adams’ executive order changing the definition of antisemitism.
Mamdani, in a long-winded response, effectively brushed off the brewing backlash from Jewish groups by insisting the city under his watch will aggressively fight hate and “protect Jewish New Yorkers.”
“I was proud yesterday to sign a number of executive orders that will give my administration a clean slate to get to work on delivering a new era for New Yorkers, one where they can envision living an affordable and dignified life,” he said when asked about the concerns at an unrelated news conference.
IJewish civil rights groups blasted him for rolling back moves by Adams designed to protect Jewish New Yorkers.AP
“My administration will also be marked by a city government that will be relentless in its efforts to combat hate and division, and we will showcase that by fighting hate across the city, and that includes fighting the scourge of antisemitism by actually funding hate crime prevention, by celebrating our neighbors, and by practicing a politics of universality,” he said.
The cumbersome, detail-free non-answer by Mamdani came after Israeli government officials, Jewish civil rights groups and New York Republicans blasted him for rolling back moves by Adams designed to protect Jewish New Yorkers.
Adams had issued an executive order adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, as well as another that barred city officials from boycotting or divesting from Israel.
But those were nixed when Mamdani moved to reverse executive orders issued by Adams after stood under federal indictment in September 2024.
Mamdani signed the order revoking the definition on his first day in office.Janet Mayer/INSTARimages.com
Mamdani did acknowledge the concerns over dropping the IHRA definition, though he stopped short of actually addressing the worries.
“I also know that a number, as you said, of leading Jewish organizations have immense concerns around this definition, so what we will do is actually deliver on our commitment to protect Jewish New Yorkers in a manner that is able to actually fulfill that,” he said.
The new mayor argued that revoking the slew of executive orders gave his administration a “clean slate” untainted by the politically suspect moves of Adams.
“What we did was to sign an executive order that continued every executive order that predated the moment when our former mayor was indicted, a moment when many New Yorkers lost even more faith in New York City politics and the ability of city government to actually prioritize the needs of the public, as opposed to the needs of the person,” he said.
Iranian exiled Prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the last shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, called on the Iranian people on Friday to "take over" the streets of Tehran and other major cities in the country to exert more pressure on Iran's regime.
"In order to overcome the regime’s repression, there is one path before us: the simultaneous and massive presence of people across the city, and at the same time, creating traffic jams on key routes and main roads," Pahlavi said in a post on X.
Previously, he thanked United States President Donald Trump for his support of the Iranian people after Trump warned that the US is ready to intervene if Iran "kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom."
It's time to highlight 2025's biggest percentage gainers and laggards on the IBD 50 list of growth stocks. Hospital operator Nutex Health (NUTX) wins the honor of strongest performer, followed by gold stock Aris Mining (ARMN). The former shot up more than 400%, and the latter more than 350%, and both stocks may have room to run higher.
Although the elite list identifies superior growth names in the stock market, not all stocks on the list produce triple-digit annual gains. The two IBD 50 stocks that rose the least in 2025 were Keros Therapeutics (KROS) and FTAI Aviation (FTAI).
Nutex Health stock gained an astounding 419% in 2025. It is just above a recent-high buy point of 158 in a long base that began in May.
Shares of the health care facilities operator plunged following a short-seller report in late November. Nutex addressed the report, saying the accusing company is an "entity that seems not to exist" based on publicly available information, and the "attack" was intended to generate profit from the declining share price. Nutex stock is not for the faint of heart as it holds a 21-day average true range of nearly 9%, whereas The IBD Methodology seeks names with an ATR of 5% or less.
Nutex returned to profitability in 2024, and analysts forecast 45% earnings growth in 2025 followed by a 49% increase in 2026. The company owns and operates 26 specialty hospitals and outpatient facilities in 12 states and manages physician networks.
The second-highest IBD 50 performer last year was copper and gold stock Aris Mining, as it soared roughly 364%. The stock is currently far extended from its cup-with-handle base breakout in March after its meteoric climb.
The miner's profit growth ranged from 238% to 350% over the last three quarters. In addition, its third-quarter revenue growth accelerated to 88% from 7% five quarters prior.
Both Nutex and Aris Mining hold IBD Timeliness Ratings of A, indicating potential positive relative price performance over the next 12 months. Impressive Names, But Lagging
Keros Therapeutics (KROS) ended the year around 29% higher, the smallest annual gain in the IBD 50. Keros stock has recovered only a portion of its 73% drop on Dec. 12, 2024, after its experimental lung hypertension drug caused a side effect of excess fluid buildup around patients' hearts.
The biopharmaceutical company develops treatments for hematological, pulmonary and cardiovascular disorders. It does not have any products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Lastly, FTAI Aviation ended 2025 nearly 37% higher, then reached a record high on Friday, topping the 200 price level.
FTAI owns, leases and maintains commercial jet engines and aircraft. But on Dec. 29 it said it's launching a platform to convert its unused jet engines into turbines to meet artificial intelligence power demand. Production is expected to start in 2026.
A series of executive orders followed by actions against the status quo in both K–12 and higher education that would save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars prompted pushback from Democratic governors and the national teachers’ union. Several lawsuits will continue into 2026.
“These are reforms that conservatives have championed for decades,” the Department of Education proclaimed in a year-end post on its website. “And in one year, we’ve made them a reality.”
Here are five things to know about Trump’s education policy in 2025.
Ending the Department of Education
Trump appointed Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who supports his goal of returning policy decisions to states and shifting funding mechanisms to other federal agencies, thereby potentially putting herself out of a job. Both have acknowledged that officially eliminating the Education Department requires congressional approval.
McMahon immediately cut her staff in half and closed satellite offices outside Washington. So far, she’s announced plans to move all functions except special education, student loans/financial aid, the office of civil rights, and data and information services to other departments, though she previously suggested those programs could be absorbed by Health and Human Services, the Treasury Department, Justice Department, and Census Bureau, respectively.
Eliminating the federal bureaucracy would get more money directly into classrooms, McMahon announced last month, adding that these interagency agreements are allowed under the Economy Act, which authorizes agencies to conduct transactions with one another in the absence of cheaper private alternatives.
In the months ahead, as state block grant programs are established to replace the current federal education grant systems, McMahon will continue her nationwide school visits, gather input from education leaders, and establish best practices for districts and states aimed at improving K–12 academic achievement.
The National Education Association teachers’ union has called the moves “illegal, cruel, and shameful.”
Civil Rights
Trump signed an executive order prohibiting the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices such as race-based hiring, admissions and curriculum; mandatory diversity training; and affinity groups by race or ethnicity. This was followed by orders condemning campus anti-Semitism and protecting women’s sports programs under Title IX.
The Education and Justice departments immediately began enforcing these policies in schools, launching investigations and withholding billions in federal funding to colleges and universities with recent histories of civil rights violations and disruptive or violent anti-Semitic protests.
Columbia will pay a $200 million fine plus $21 million to Jewish employees harassed by co-workers and students. Cornell University, also cited for both discriminatory student admissions practices and anti-Semitism, agreed to pay a $30 million penalty to the federal government and invest $30 million in research that directly benefits U.S. farmers.
The University of Pennsylvania, which was sanctioned for allowing a male to compete on the women’s swim team, was required to strip that athlete, Lia Thomas, of all awards, including his 2022 NCAA national championship, and send a letter of apology to all female swimmers who competed against him.
Trump attempted to freeze more than $500 million in research grants to the University of California-Los Angeles, but the school obtained a federal court order that said the funding must be released.
A legal battle with the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university, Harvard, is also ongoing. Trump’s attempt to withhold billions of dollars in research grants to the institution was met with a lawsuit, though the two sides have discussed a settlement. In September, Trump said a settlement could include $500 million for trade school programs that provide instruction on artificial intelligence, engines, and other vocations.
But most U.S. colleges and universities have not challenged federal policies and have removed online references to DEI programs.
“Faculties had collectively owned universities, and problems had been allowed to fester for years,” Jay Greene, formerly of the Heritage Foundation and now a member of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, previously told The Epoch Times. “Senior leadership at these schools gains back control. They are relieved, and they get to blame Trump. It’s a total win.”
Trump has taken far fewer civil rights actions against K–12 institutions, though he has threatened to withhold federal funding from states that allow males to compete in girls’ sports or permit schools to withhold information about their child’s sexuality or chosen gender from parents.
Higher Education Compact
After the 2025–2026 academic year began, the Trump administration presented its proposed Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education to nine universities.
They were offered preferred consideration for federal grants and flexibility in research costs if they agreed to eliminate preferential treatment by race, require SAT scores in student applications, limit undergraduate admission of foreign students to 15 percent, freeze tuition for five years, maintain a policy of institutional neutrality on political and social issues, and accept all transfer credits from military members and veterans.
Seven schools declined the offer, announcing that such a deal would compromise their institutional independence. The remaining two schools, Vanderbilt and the University of Texas, haven’t announced a decision yet.
The Education Department hasn’t indicated whether the compact has been, or will be, offered to additional colleges and universities.
Universal School Choice
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Congress this year, includes a federal scholarship tax program supporting private school vouchers.
The program, which takes effect in 2027, allows a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for donors to qualified scholarship-granting organizations or to cover associated costs like transportation and supplies. There are income eligibility guidelines in place to prioritize needy families.
The program is optional for states, and governors will consider it in the months ahead.
Trump and McMahon have promoted school choice, saying the one-size-fits-all approach of assigned schools by ZIP code is largely to blame for declining test scores across the nation.
In April, the president spoke to Republican Texas state legislators before they passed a bill that provides $1 billion for private school vouchers in the first year of the program, plus $2,000 per student for homeschooling expenses and up to $30,000 for special education students who chose a different school.
In June, McMahon boosted federal funding to publicly funded charter schools by $60 million for an annual total of $500 million. Her Republican supporters in Congress plan to introduce a federal tax credit for charitable donations to start up new charter schools.
Student Loans and Higher Education Transparency
Trump overhauled the student loan policies of his predecessor, President Joe Biden, who attempted to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in delinquent debt to more than 5 million student borrowers. He also capped student loan programs that under Biden allowed students and parents to borrow unlimited amounts.
“The Trump administration is righting this wrong and bringing an end to this deceptive scheme. The law is clear: If you take out a loan, you must pay it back,” Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a Dec. 9 statement.
The Education Department will soon begin garnishing wages of borrowers who default on loans. The agency has also denied almost 380,000 requests for lower monthly payments. The American Federation of Teachers has sued the administration to maintain Biden-era payback arrangements.
In applying for federal student aid, meanwhile, borrowers are now informed of their post-graduation earning potential based on data from colleges and universities.
In 2026, Trump is expected to push the bipartisan College Transparency Act, which would task the National Center for Education Statistics with analyzing higher education costs and financial aid, as well as evaluating student enrollment patterns, completion rates, and post-collegiate outcomes.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky proposed on Friday Mykhailo Fedorov as the new minister of defense, announcing further personnel changes in the government after heappointed a new head of his presidential officeearlier today.
Fedorov is currently serving as the first deputy prime minister and the minister of digital transformation. If confirmed by the Rada, he will succeed Denys Shmyhal as the new defense chief. Zelensky said the cabinet reshuffle should address some problems "that should not carry over into the new year."
Shmyhal, who had also served as the country's prime minister, would assume a new government post, Zelensky explained.
I’m Art Caplan. I'm at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
A topic that we often find up in the air for discussion is medical aid in dying or assisted suicide, or the practice of helping terminally ill people to die.
We have to return to it again because a new issue is coming up in various countries, and that is medical aid in dying for people with dementia —people who are suffering from Alzheimer's, Lewy body disease, had many strokes, and are losing their cognitive capacity or losing their identity. Just talking to people, death is feared; becoming demented and losing personal identity is feared more.
Almost expectedly, we're starting to have discussions as to whether we should extend medical aid in dying to people with dementia. It's not permitted right now in the US. Some states allow it for people who are terminally ill, but they have to be competent.
By the way, that restriction is in place in places like Germany, Japan, and Israel, but other countries do permit people with dementia to be aided in their dying.The Netherlands is one, and Canada — particularly the province of Quebec — is quickly moving in this direction as well.
Surveys show a little bit more support than I might have guessed. Up to one third of American doctors say that for people with dementia, maybe it would be appropriate to help them to die sooner. There are big numbers in Europe, with up to 70% in Belgium, saying, yes, they agree with that, too.
By the way, one of the surveys I found reported that about 1 in 3 doctor respondents said if they were becoming demented, they would consider using lethal drugs that were at their disposal to end their own life.
Still, I oppose extending aid in dying to people with dementia. I think we have a number of ethical reasons that still make this a practice that I don't think the United States should move toward.
First, the very fact of dementia makes it uncertain as to whether somebody knows what they're asking for. They're not competent. Maybe they could fill out an advanced directive, but again, would they really feel that way if they're demented but are eating and happy and watching television? I don't know. It's very difficult to say you're going to choose to die earlier, and say that's a real choice, when you're in the middle of rapidly advancing or full-fledged dementia.
I worry about abuse. There are exhausted caregivers. There are people who just can't bear anymore the relative who's becoming demented. That is not a reason to help the demented person die. It's a reason to provide more support than we do to caregivers and families, and we don't do a good job there.
I think the cost is huge. Telling people they have to die sooner because there's a huge expense is not the ethical thing to do either. We have to provide care to the demented, and the care has to be good quality. If it is expensive, then we should look for ways to lower it.
I am not opposed to medical aid in dying for people who can choose it and who are terminally ill. I don't think it violates the do-no-harm injunction because people are going to die anyway and fear the mode of that death due to terminal illness. They have the right to ask for help, and whether they do it or not, that's a choice I think we could give. There's no choice when it comes to dementia.
