Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has been governed by a "Velayat-e Faqih" (Guardianship of the Jurist) system. This far-right theocratic structure places absolute power in the hands of a Supreme Leader. This leadership operates on a bigoted, narrow perception of life that prioritizes religious dogma over individual liberty, viewing Western influence ("Westoxification") as a moral plague. The regime's worldview is defined by an uncompromising "us vs. them" mentality that seeks to export its radical ideology across the Middle East.

The regime's "vision" for Iran is enforced through the brutal suppression of marginalized groups, often resulting in state-sanctioned murder.

Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, utilizing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to fund and direct proxies.

Significant concerns have been raised regarding the infiltration of Iranian agents and terrorists through the U.S. southern border:

Iran’s role in the 10/7 massacre was pivotal and characterized by direct high-level coordination. While the regime publicly maintains "deniability," intelligence reports and captured documents have identified the specific Iranian officials who greenlit and oversaw the operation.

The Iranian-backed invasion resulted in the most horrific atrocities committed against Jewish people since the Holocaust, including:

Under President Trump, the U.S. moved from "Maximum Pressure" to direct kinetic action. The decision to remove the far-right religious and IRGC leadership—building on the precedent of the 2020 Soleimani strike—has created a new geopolitical reality.

Social: The removal of these architects of repression offers a generational opportunity for the Iranian people to reclaim their country and move toward a secular, free society.

Niccolò Machiavelli, in his 1513 treatise The Prince, argued that a ruler (the Prince) must be prepared to "enter into evil when necessity commands" to ensure the stability and security of the state. While Machiavelli never used the exact phrase "the end justifies the means," the concept permeates his work: the ultimate goal—the preservation of the state and the removal of existential threats, is so paramount that it overrides conventional moral or legal constraints.

In the context of President Trump’s decision to launch Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026, the administration has adopted a starkly Machiavellian posture. The "End" is the absolute prevention of an Iranian nuclear weapon and the neutralization of a regime that has targeted U.S. interests for nearly half a century. The "Means"—a massive, unprovoked opening strike targeting the Supreme Leader’s compound and nuclear infrastructure—represents a departure from traditional "proportional" responses in favor of a decisive, amoral application of power intended to shock the system into collapse.

The United States and Iran have been in a state of "Cold War" since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The philosophical differences are foundational:

Since the 1979 Hostage Crisis, the U.S. has viewed Iran not just as a competitor, but as a "rogue state" that uses asymmetric warfare (proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis) to undermine the American-led order.

President Trump has signaled that his "End Game" is not merely a better nuclear deal, but the total dismantling of the current theocratic structure.

Can this be done in weeks? While the military destruction of static targets (nuclear sites, naval bases) can be achieved in days, regime change is rarely a weekly event. Historical precedents (Iraq, Libya) suggest that while the "top" of a regime can be decapitated quickly, the resulting power vacuum often leads to prolonged civil strife. However, the Trump administration appears to be betting that the Iranian public is at a "breaking point" and will do the work of regime change themselves if the IRGC is sufficiently weakened.

President Trump must navigate a fractured Iranian political landscape:

Today's opening attack involved significant coordination and support from regional allies who view Iran as an existential threat:

President Trump’s strategy is a high-stakes gamble on Political Realism. By prioritizing the "End" (security through regime collapse), he has discarded the "Means" of traditional diplomacy. The coming weeks will determine if this Machiavellian stroke leads to a "liberated" Iran or a region-wide conflagration.

On February 23, 2026, President Donald J. Trump issued a proclamation designating February 22 as National Angel Family Day. The text serves as both a memorial for victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens and a progress report on the administration's aggressive immigration and border security overhaul. The proclamation emphasizes that such tragedies are "100 percent preventable" and outlines the legislative and executive actions taken during the first year of the term to address these issues.

The primary purpose of the text is to honor "Angel Families"—those who have lost loved ones to crimes or drug trafficking involving individuals in the country illegally. The proclamation seeks to provide these families with the public recognition and justice the President claims they were previously denied.

Key Quote (President Trump): "We stand with the Angel Families, many of whom continue to be left without justice... we renew our duty to uphold the rule of law, secure our borders, and deliver accountability for every American killed."

The report highlights specific victims to personify the consequences of border security failures. By naming individuals like Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, and Rachel Morin, the text argues that immigration policy is not merely a political issue but a matter of life and death.

Key Quote (President Trump): "The human cost of the migrant crime crisis is written in the lives of Americans like Laken Riley... each of these lives and countless others were stolen by criminal illegal aliens who should have never been in our country."

At today's White House event, the administration highlighted the specific details of high-profile cases and provided a platform for the parents of the victims.

Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student, was murdered on February 22, 2024, while jogging at the University of Georgia. Her killer, Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan national who had entered the country illegally in 2022, was convicted of felony murder after DNA evidence was found under Riley's fingernails from her struggle to fight him off.

Jocelyn Nungaray, aged 12, was lured under a bridge in Houston on June 16, 2024, where she was tied up, sexually assaulted, and strangled by two Venezuelan nationals. The suspects had been apprehended by Border Patrol and released into the interior just weeks before the murder.

Rachel Morin, a 37-year-old mother of five, was ambushed, raped, and murdered in August 2023 while running on the Ma & Pa Trail in Bel Air, Maryland. Her killer, Victor Antonio Martinez-Hernandez, was an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who was also linked by DNA to a home invasion and assault on a 9-year-old girl in Los Angeles.

The text identifies several key actions taken to address the concerns of Angel Families:

The proclamation cites specific metrics to demonstrate the effectiveness of the administration's "ferocious energy" in border enforcement:

The text concludes by framing border security as the foundation of statehood. It positions the "National Angel Family Day" not just as a day of mourning, but as a day of national resolve to ensure "a people without justice can never be fully free."

Final Proclamation Instruction: President Trump calls on Americans to "assemble in their respective places of worship to pay homage to the victims... and lift up the Angel Families and families devastated by drug overdoses."

The observation that marital status is a primary driver of homeownership is supported by significant demographic data. While the overall homeownership gap between Black and White households remains a persistent 28–30 percentage points, the gap narrows significantly when comparing married couples.

To understand the full impact of the homeownership gap, one must examine the "Marriage Gap." Because marriage provides such a significant boost to homeownership, the lower prevalence of marriage in certain communities directly correlates to lower aggregate homeownership rates.

According to 2025 demographic projections based on American Community Survey (ACS) trends:

Demographic Group

Estimated Marriage Rate (Adults 18+)

White

53.5%

Asian

58.2%

Middle Eastern

51.0%

Latino/Hispanic

44.8%

Black

29.4%

Recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) (2023-2025 snapshots) reveals a stark contrast in homeownership rates when adjusted for marital status.

Demographic Group

Overall Homeownership Rate

Married Homeownership Rate (Estimated)

White Households

72.4%

82% – 84%

Black Households

44.7%

65% – 67%

The Gap

27.7 Points

15 – 18 Points

The following table expands the scope to include Asian, Latino, and Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) demographic data, showing how marital status elevates homeownership across different backgrounds.

Demographic Group

Overall Homeownership

Married Homeownership

Percentage Point Increase

White

72%

83%

+11%

Asian

63%

74%

+11%

Middle Eastern

58%

69%

+11%

Latino/Hispanic

49%

62%

+13%

Black

45%

66%

+21%

Note: Black households see the single largest statistical "leap" in homeownership status upon marriage compared to any other demographic group.

The surge in homeownership for married couples isn't just social; it is rooted in financial logistics and risk mitigation:

Despite the "Marriage Equalizer," a significant gap remains even for married couples. Experts point to several factors that marriage alone cannot solve:

White married couples are statistically more likely to receive substantial down payment assistance from parents or grandparents. Because of the historical inability of previous Black generations to build equity (due to redlining and GI Bill exclusions), Black married couples are more likely to be "first-generation homeowners" starting from zero.

Data from 2024–2025 shows that Black mortgage applicants are still denied at nearly double the rate of White applicants, even when adjusting for similar income levels.

The valuation of homes in majority-Black neighborhoods is affected by a complex intersection of bias and environmental factors. Research from The Brookings Institution indicates that homes in Black neighborhoods are undervalued by an average of $48,000 per home, amounting to $156 billion in cumulative lost equity.

The "Marriage Gap" isn't uniform across the U.S. Some regions show much higher rates of Black homeownership:

Homeownership rates have fluctuated significantly over the last two decades, influenced by broad economic cycles and administration-specific policies.

The Obama era was defined by the long-term recovery from the 2008 Financial Crisis. Black households were disproportionately hit by subprime lending and subsequent foreclosures.

The Trump administration saw a period of low interest rates and a pre-pandemic economic boom that began to stabilize homeownership rates.

This era was marked by high market volatility, record home price appreciation, and significant fluctuations in minority homeownership.

Marriage is perhaps the single most effective demographic "lever" for increasing Black homeownership. However, it cannot fully compensate for the lack of intergenerational wealth, lending complexities, or the economic impact of neighborhood crime and insurance costs which devalues black owned property and equity rates, policy-focused solutions remain necessary to close the final 15% of the gap.

Hearing Title: An Inside Job: How NGOs Facilitated the Biden Border Crisis

Date: July 16-17, 2025

Committee: House Committee on Homeland Security

Subcommittee Chair: Josh Brecheen (R-OK)

The House Committee on Homeland Security held a series of hearings investigating the role of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the ongoing border crisis. The central thesis of the report is that a multi-billion dollar "Border Industrial Complex" has emerged, where NGOs act as a "pipeline" to facilitate mass illegal immigration and, in many cases, inadvertently or negligently assist human trafficking operations.

Key allegations include:

"It was a pipeline, man. We fed a pipeline of tender-aged children into sex trafficking and slave labor into our country. We’re finding these kids—we’re tracking these fraudulent documents." — Rep. Clay Higgins

"What we've uncovered is essentially an assembly line of exploitation: children moved through cartel-controlled smuggling routes... handed to Border Patrol, processed by HHS, passed to NGOs... and ultimately delivered to cartel networks." — Ali Hopper

"The Biden administration turned the Border Patrol into nothing more than a welcome center—a day care—and glorified Uber drivers that ferried illegal aliens to open-borders organizations." — Mike Howell

"In 2020, Endeavors reported $52 million in revenue. In 2022, they reported a record $1.18 billion... the compensation for the CEO doubled." — Rep. Michael Guest

"One shelter in El Paso told me in 2023 around 80 percent of the women who came to them had been raped, sometimes in front of their children... their 'help' ends up harming the people who used their services." — Julio Rosas

"From August 2023 to January of 2025, 65,000 calls [to the safety hotline] went unanswered. Those calls spanned from complaints about stale bread all the way to being abused." — Ali Hopper

Cherokee Federal: Allegations included a gang member employed under a false identity being put in charge of child placements.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered a major blow to the administration’s trade policy, ruling that the President cannot use emergency powers (specifically IEEPA) to bypass Congress’s constitutional authority to levy taxes and tariffs.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts clarified the fundamental nature of trade duties. He rejected the administration's argument that "regulating importation" under emergency law includes the power to set tariff rates.

"The Constitution very clearly assigns the authority to levy taxes—including tariffs—to Congress. The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch. A tariff is a tax, and in our system, the power of the purse belongs to the people’s representatives."

— Chief Justice John Roberts

This quote reinforces the idea that tariffs are not merely tools of foreign policy or "regulations" of trade, but are domestic taxes paid by American importers and consumers.

The SCOTUS ruling specifically targeted the use of IEEPA. The President still has other, more targeted tools, though they require longer processes:

This ruling is a modern validation of Justice Antonin Scalia’s philosophy on why the United States is "exceptional." Scalia famously argued that the Bill of Rights is not what makes America unique—many "banana republics" have bills of rights that look better on paper.

Scalia maintained that American Exceptionalism lies in the Structure of Government. He argued that the Separation of Powers and the system of Checks and Balances are the "chains" that bind the "mischief" of government.

In this case, the Supreme Court fulfilled its "exceptional" role: ensuring that even the most powerful executive cannot seize the "Power of the Purse" without a clear mandate from the people's representatives in Congress.

Artist: The Phylum Chordata (David Sepe)

Release Date: 2026

Genre: Ethereal Dream Pop / Ambient Electronic

Twenty years is a lifetime in the music industry, but for David Sepe, the mastermind behind the moniker The Phylum Chordata, it seems the hiatus since 2005 was merely a period of deep observation and personal growth. His return single, "Eternity of Peace," is a profound, technological, and spiritual meditation that bridges the gap between the digital and the divine.

The genesis of the track is as modern as its themes are ancient. Sepe reportedly built the foundation of the song from a choir sample discovered within the libraries of Final Cut Pro. What began as a utilitarian video editing asset was transformed into a "vibrating space" pad synth line, creating a wide, atmospheric stage.

The sonic landscape is anchored by a "pingy," ethereal timbre that sits somewhere between a dulcimer and a felt piano. It provides a tactile, organic counterpoint to the swirling synthesizers, mimicking the "fleeting time" Sepe describes in his lyrics.

However, the most intriguing element is the vocal performance. Embracing the cutting edge of music production, Sepe utilized AI tools (Sepe uses “Ai” because “AI” looks like the name Al…it drives him nuts) to create a persona he calls Josephine Bodean. Bodean’s performance is hauntingly perfect for the genre; her voice possesses a crystalline, "otherworldly" quality that feels detached from the physical world, yet deeply emotive.

At its heart, "Eternity of Peace" is a love letter to fatherhood. Sepe explores the "transient and impermanent thought" of current existence, juxtaposed against a firm belief in a conscious afterlife.

The lyrics move through several key emotional phases:

"Eternity of Peace" is a stunning return for The Phylum Chordata. It manages to make high-concept Ai production feel intensely human and intimate. By focusing on the specific joy of watching his children grow, David Sepe has created a universal anthem for anyone who has ever looked at a loved one and wished that a single moment could last forever.

In this track, Sepe convinces us that perhaps it can.

I’m ready

I’ve lived the dream

True Love found in our fleeting time together

Everything happens for a reason, for some reason, that I don’t understand

I’m so blessed to have made the choices that led to this very transient and impermanent thought

I won’t always exist in the here and now, but I will exist in you and your existence

I’m ready

I’ve lived the dream

Our seconds, moments, hours, and other measures of time will nourish my other worldly existence

Heaven does exist

I will live forever with you in the eternity of Peace

The late Civil Rights icon John Lewis often spoke of "Good Trouble,” the moral necessity of disrupting unjust systems to precipitate progress. While this phrase is frequently associated with the voting booths and lunch counters of the American South, its spirit found a powerful, albeit unexpected, champion on the baseball diamond. Curt Flood, an elite center fielder for the St. Louis Cardinals, transformed a personal grievance into a seminal moment in labor history. By challenging Major League Baseball’s (MLB) reserve clause, Flood bridged the gap between the Civil Rights Movement and economic justice, ultimately sacrificing his career to pave the way for the era of the Black millionaire athlete.

To understand Flood’s impact, one must first recognize the stature of the man himself. By 1969, Curt Flood was a cornerstone of the St. Louis Cardinals, a three-time All-Star, and a seven-time Gold Glove winner. However, his identity was not confined to the outfield. Having marched for civil rights alongside Jackie Robinson and witnessed the vitriol of segregation in the minor leagues, Flood possessed a social conscience that refused to separate the game of baseball from the broader struggle for human dignity. This conscience was put to the test when the Cardinals traded him to the Philadelphia Phillies without his consent, a move that triggered a rebellion against the sport’s foundational labor structure.

At the center of the dispute was the "reserve clause," a contractual provision that effectively bound a player to a single team for the duration of their career. Under this system, players were treated as assets rather than employees; they had no right to negotiate with other teams or seek their true market value. To Flood, the language of the clause was a relic of a darker American past. In a defiant letter to Commissioner Bowie Kuhn, he asserted, "I do not feel that I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes." With the support of the MLB Players Association and Marvin Miller, Flood filed an antitrust lawsuit that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Though he lost the legal battle in 1972 due to a historical exemption for baseball, his willingness to endure professional exile and public scrutiny shattered the perceived invincibility of the team owners.

The ripples of Flood's "Good Trouble" were felt just three years after his court defeat. The momentum he generated led to the 1975 Peter Seitz arbitration ruling, which granted free agency to pitchers Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally. This decision was the direct descendant of Flood’s defiance; he had provided the ideological and public framework necessary for the reserve clause to finally collapse. By dismantling this system, Flood fundamentally altered the economic landscape of professional sports, shifting the power dynamic from the owners’ suites to the players' locker rooms.

The evolution of the market since that victory has created a level of wealth that was once unimaginable. Today, the fruit of Flood’s labor is visible in the astronomical contracts of Black stars who command their market value on a global stage. Aaron Judge’s nine-year, $360 million contract, earning him $40 million annually, and Mookie Betts’ massive 12-year, $365 million deal are the modern standard-bearers of this economic freedom. They are joined by a cohort of highly compensated athletes including Marcus Semien ($175M total), Giancarlo Stanton ($325M total), and George Springer ($150M total). From veterans like Marcus Stroman and Byron Buxton to established stars like Michael Brantley and Luis Robert, the spectrum of million-dollar salaries—ranging from multi-year blockbusters to significant single-year deals for players like Josh Bell, Andrew McCutchen, and Tim Anderson—highlights a labor market that finally recognizes individual worth. Even the arbitration system, which provided Cedric Mullins with nearly $5 million in 2024, operates on the foundational principle that players are not "property," but skilled professionals entitled to fair compensation.

In conclusion, Curt Flood’s legacy is a testament to the power of a single voice raised against a systemic injustice. Though he was criticized at the time for "biting the hand that fed him," history has vindicated his struggle. He did not merely change the rules of a game; he asserted the fundamental right of a worker to control their own destiny. By choosing to make "Good Trouble," Curt Flood ensured that the modern athlete would no longer be a piece of property, but a partner in the prosperity of the American pastime.

In the contemporary American discourse on public safety, few topics are as fraught with tension as the "active shooter" phenomenon. While these incidents remain statistically rare relative to overall homicides, their psychological and economic toll on the national consciousness is immense. For decades, the primary strategy for managing these threats has centered on rapid law enforcement response. However, a landmark 2025 study by researchers John R. Lott, Jr. and Carl E. Moody, titled “Do Armed Civilians Stop Active Shooters More Effectively Than Uniformed Police?”, challenges the traditional hierarchy of response. By synthesizing performance data with broader economic realities, a new picture emerges: one where the private citizen with a concealed handgun permit (CHP) serves as a vital, high-efficacy component of the national defense infrastructure.

The core of the debate often rests on how we track and define success. Lott and Moody identify a significant "reporting gap" between official FBI datasets and the more comprehensive findings of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC). Between 2014 and 2021, while the FBI reported that civilians stopped only 4.4% of active shootings, the CPRC’s more granular analysis, which accounts for cases often misclassified or excluded by federal standards, reveals a vastly different reality. In locations where firearms are legally permitted, armed civilians were found to have neutralized the threat in 51.5% of cases. This exceeds the 44.6% intervention rate of law enforcement in the same scenarios. The discrepancy often arises from the FBI’s exclusion of incidents where a shooter is stopped before a high casualty threshold is met, essentially ignoring the most successful preemptive interventions.

Beyond the frequency of intervention lies the critical question of risk and precision. One of the study's most startling revelations is the "Risk Paradox." Despite their specialized training, uniformed police officers face a fatality rate 5.94 times higher than that of permit holders when engaging an active shooter. This is largely attributed to the "uniform effect," where officers serve as high-visibility targets for attackers, whereas concealed permit holders benefit from the element of surprise. Furthermore, the concern of "collateral damage," the accidental shooting of bystanders, is statistically lower among civilians. Permit holders shot a bystander in only 0.56% of cases, while police, often firing in high-stress, multi-officer environments, did so at a rate of 1.14%.

This tactical efficacy exists within a massive economic framework. The firearms industry is not merely a cultural or political entity but a significant economic engine, contributing over $91.6 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2024 and supporting nearly 383,000 jobs. Through the Pittman-Robertson Act, the industry also provides nearly $900 million annually for conservation and wildlife restoration. However, this output must be weighed against the staggering $557 billion annual societal cost of gun violence, a figure that encompasses medical expenses, lost productivity, and the profound erosion of quality of life.

Herein lies the economic value of Defensive Gun Use (DGU). With approximately 1.82 million instances of self-defense annually, firearms serve as a private-sector mitigation tool against the massive financial losses associated with violent crime. In a country with over 21.5 million permit holders compared to just 223,000 officers on duty at any given time, the permit holder represents a pervasive, decentralized, and "low-cost" security layer. This density of potential responders likely contributes to the finding that "Constitutional Carry" laws correlate with a reduction in total active shooting attacks, suggesting a deterrent effect that traditional policing, constrained by response times and visibility, cannot replicate.

The research by Lott and Moody suggests that the "active shooter" problem cannot be solved by a single institution. Instead, public safety relies on an equilibrium between professional law enforcement and an empowered, accurate, and widespread civilian population. While the costs of gun violence remain a heavy burden on the American economy, the data suggests that the armed citizen is not a liability to be managed, but a critical asset that, when permitted to act, stops more than half of the country's most public tragedies.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act is a legislative proposal designed to strengthen the integrity of U.S. elections by mandating documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. The Act aims to close perceived loopholes in the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, ensuring that only eligible U.S. citizens participate in federal, state, and local elections.

To understand the impetus behind the SAVE Act, proponents often point to the risk of voter impersonation and the loss of individual franchise. A poignant example occurred several years ago when my Mother,  a citizen, arrived at her polling location to exercise her Constitutional right. Upon providing her name and address, she was informed by the poll worker that someone had already voted in her name. My Mother’s vote had been stolen. 

While she was permitted to fill out a provisional ballot, the original, lawful vote had already been stolen. This scenario highlights a critical gap: had the poll worker been required to ask for a valid photo ID to verify the identity of the criminal, the "vote theft" would have been prevented. The SAVE Act seeks to institutionalize these protections to ensure that a citizen's vote is not only cast but protected from being nullified by fraudulent and criminal actors.

The SAVE Act (H.R. 8281 / H.R. 22) proposes several fundamental changes to the federal election process:

The Act is designed to make "cheating" or administrative errors significantly harder by moving from an "attestation-based" system to a "verification-based" system.

Currently, the NVRA allows applicants to register by checking a box affirming citizenship under penalty of perjury. Proponents of the SAVE Act argue this "honor system" is insufficient. By requiring DPOC, the Act creates a physical paper trail that prevents non-citizens from accidentally or intentionally being added to rolls.

By establishing a federal standard for proof of citizenship, the Act reduces the variability between states, making it harder for ineligible individuals to find "weak links" in registration systems.

The Act grants state election officials greater access to federal data. This real-time or periodic verification helps identify and remove individuals who may have been eligible at one point (e.g., on a temporary visa) but remain on the rolls after their status changes.

A primary argument for the SAVE Act is that it protects the "weight" of a legal citizen's vote.

In a constitutional sense, the right to vote is protected not only by ensuring access but by ensuring that a legal vote is not offset by an illegal one. If an ineligible person casts a ballot, the value of a legal citizen's vote is mathematically diluted.

The Act—and associated Republican election integrity efforts—often pair registration requirements with Photo ID requirements at the polling place. This addresses specific concerns regarding "stolen" votes or voter impersonation:

The ultimate goal of the SAVE Act is to increase public confidence in election outcomes.

By requiring proof upfront, the Act seeks to eliminate the post-election "audit" phase where results are questioned. When every name on a list has been verified through a birth certificate or passport, the margin for error shrinks.

The Act creates a transparent standard that applies to all. When the public knows that every participant has met the same rigorous, document-based criteria, the "honest and fair" nature of the result is easier to demonstrate to the electorate, regardless of the political outcome.

The SAVE Act represents a shift toward a "security-first" model of election administration. While critics point to potential hurdles for those without easy access to documents, proponents argue that the cost of verification is a necessary investment to protect the sanctity of the ballot and ensure that the Constitutional right to vote remains exclusive to U.S. citizens.