Itemoids

New York

What Trump Means by ‘Impartial Justice’

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2025 › 03 › donald-trump-el-salvador-brown-university-professor-judges › 682080

This story seems to be about:

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

On Friday, President Donald Trump delivered an unusual speech at the Justice Department. Between fulminating against his political adversaries and long digressions about the late basketball coach Bob Knight, Trump declared, “We’re restoring fair, equal, and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law.”

Then his administration spent the weekend proving otherwise.

People who believe the press is overhyping the danger to rule of law posed by the current administration have pointed out that although administration officials have repeatedly attacked the judicial system, the White House has not actually defied a judge.

But that may not be the case anymore, or for much longer. On Saturday in Washington, D.C., Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order barring the federal government from deporting Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador, which it was seeking to do using a 1798 law that bypasses much due process by declaring an enemy invasion. Nonetheless, hundreds of Venezuelans alleged by the administration to be connected with the gang Tren de Aragua landed in El Salvador, where authoritarian President Nayib Bukele has agreed to take them. Separately, a federal judge in Massachusetts is demanding to know why Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese doctor at Brown University’s medical school, was deported despite a valid visa and a court order temporarily blocking her removal.

The White House insists that it did not actually defy Boasberg’s judicial order, but its arguments are very hard to take at face value. “The Administration did not ‘refuse to comply’ with a court order,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist [Tren de Aragua] aliens had already been removed from U.S. territory.” She’s trying to have it both ways—the order is unlawful, but also we didn’t ignore it. “The written order and the Administration’s actions do not conflict,” Leavitt said.

Although Boasberg’s written order did not specify, the judge told attorneys during the Saturday hearing that “any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States.” Politico reports that the plane left during a break in the hearing, as though the government was angling to get out just ahead of any mandate. During a briefing today, Leavitt also questioned whether the verbal order held the same weight as a written order, which is a matter of settled law. During a hearing early this evening, Boasberg seemed incredulous at the Justice Department’s arguments, calling one a “heck of a stretch.”

In the Boston case, a Customs and Border Protection official said in a sworn declaration that the agency had not received formal notification of the judge’s order when it deported Alawieh. CBP said in a statement yesterday that “arriving aliens bear the burden of establishing admissibility to the United States.”

The statements of Trump administration officials elsewhere make it even harder to take their actions as anything other than attempting to defy judges. Salvadoran President Bukele posted a screenshot of a New York Post story about the judge’s order on X with the commentary, “Oopsie … Too late” and a laughing-crying emoji. Chief Bureaucrat Elon Musk replied with the same emoji, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared Bukele’s post from his own account. “Border czar” Tom Homan appeared on Fox News this morning and said, “We’re not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think. I don’t care what the left thinks. We’re coming.”

These actions should be terrifying no matter who is involved. The fact that Tren de Aragua is indeed a vicious gang doesn’t nullify the law—the administration’s claim that the U.S. is contending with a wartime invasion is ridiculous on its face. Even more important is whether the White House decided to snub a ruling by a federal judge. Nor do customs officials’ claims in court filings that they found “sympathetic photos and videos” of Hezbollah leaders on Alawieh’s phone, or that she told them she had attended the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s funeral, mean the law doesn’t apply. For all we know, her actions may well justify her deportation. (Of course, we have little way of assessing any of these allegations clearly, because the administration has sidestepped the usual judicial proceedings in both cases. A lawyer for Alawieh’s family hasn’t commented on the allegations.) What matters is that the executive branch acted despite a judge’s order.

This is what we might call the Mahmoud Khalil test: No matter whether you think someone’s ideas or actions are deplorable, once the executive branch decides it doesn’t have to follow the law for one person, it has established that it doesn’t have to follow the law for anyone. After Khalil was arrested, Trump said that he was “the first arrest of many to come.” No one should have any illusion that the list will stop with alleged Tren de Aragua members. Throughout his career, Trump has tested boundaries and, if allowed to do so, pushed further. His actions at the start of this term show that he is more emboldened than ever, and traditionally institutionalist figures such as Rubio seem eager to abet him.

Watching Trump’s DOJ address, supposedly about law and order, offers some ideas of who else he might target while ignoring the law. So do his social-media accounts. This morning on Truth Social, Trump claimed that former President Joe Biden’s pardons of Liz Cheney and other members of the House January 6 Committee were not valid. “The ‘Pardons’ that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen,” Trump wrote. “In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!”

Trump wouldn’t bother with this if he didn’t hope to prosecute the people involved. Although Biden’s pardons were controversial because they were issued preemptively, the idea that an autopen, which allows the user to sign remotely, would invalidate them is concocted out of thin air. (Nor has Trump provided evidence that Biden did in fact use an autopen in these cases.) The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote a justification for the practice in 2005, and presidents have been using them to sign legislation since 2011, without serious incident. The Supreme Court could conceivably rule in favor of Trump’s view—the justices have adopted other long-shot Trump claims—but it is hard to imagine, and would be a real departure.

When Trump speaks about law and order, he means it very narrowly. He believes in swift justice for his adversaries, with or without due process of the law; meanwhile, he believes his actions should not be constrained by law, the Constitution, or anything else that might cause him problems, and he has used pardons prolifically to excuse the actions of his friends and allies, whether Paul Manafort and Roger Stone or January 6 rioters. Plenty of presidents have been frustrated by the limitations of the law. Richard Nixon even claimed, years after leaving office, that any action by the president, as head of the executive branch, is de facto legal. But no president until now has so aggressively or so frequently acted as though he didn’t need to follow the law’s most basic precepts.

Back in November, my colleague Tom Nichols invoked the Peruvian politician Óscar Benavides. Though he’s little known in the United States, here are a few striking facts about him: He served as president twice, first coming to power not through a popular election but through appointment by an elected assembly. Some years later, he returned to the presidency as an unabashed authoritarian. (Hmm.) “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law,” goes a quote sometimes attributed to Benavides. It could be the motto of the Trump administration over the past four days.

Related:

The ultimate Trump story Mahmoud Khalil’s detention is a trial run.

Here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

Franklin Foer on Columbia University’s anti-Semitism problem The lesson Trump is learning the hard way How Republicans learned to love high prices

Today’s News

At least 42 people died after a powerful storm system hit central and southern U.S. states over the weekend, according to officials. The Energy Department, EPA, and NOAA started hiring back probationary employees after federal judges recently ruled that their firings were illegally carried out and ordered their reinstatement. Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are scheduled to speak on the phone tomorrow about a cease-fire with Ukraine. Trump said yesterday that he expects the conversation to include discussions about Ukraine’s power plants, and that there have already been talks about “dividing up” Ukrainian assets.

Dispatches

Work in Progress: “Buy, Borrow, Die”—this is how to be a billionaire and pay no taxes, Rogé Karma writes. The Wonder Reader: Finding love has never been easy, but this is a particularly tricky moment for romance, Isabel Fattal writes.

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

Illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Sources: Marsell Gorska Gautier / Getty; naumoid / Getty.

Sex Without Women

By Caitlin Flanagan

What a testament to man—how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties!—that he continued doing anything else after the advent of online porn. Plenty of women, of course, consume and enjoy or create and profit from porn—people of every sexual orientation and gender identity do. But the force that through the green fuse drives the flower (and the money) is heterosexual male desire for women. And here was porn so good, so varied, so ready to please, so instantly—insistently—available, that it led to a generation of men who think of porn not as a backup to having sex, but as an improvement on it. They prefer it.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

Olga Khazan: “How baby-led weaning almost ruined my life” John Green: The world’s deadliest infectious disease is about to get worse. The stain of betrayal in Afghanistan LeBron James and the limits of nepotism One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world.

Culture Break

Zack Wittman

Batter up. Why aren’t women allowed to play baseball? They’ve always loved America’s pastime—but it’s never loved them back, Kaitlyn Tiffany writes.

It’s as easy as … Riding an e-bike. Getting around on one might be a bit slower than in a car, but it’s also “transformed my family’s life,” Elizabeth Endicott writes.

Play our daily crossword.

Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Invading Canada Is Not Advisable

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2025 › 03 › us-canada-relations-trump › 682046

When I served as counselor of the State Department, I advised the secretary of state about America’s wars with Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and al-Qaeda. I spent a good deal of time visiting battlefields in the Middle East and Afghanistan as well as shaping strategy in Washington. But when I left government service in 2009, I eagerly resumed work on a book that dealt with America’s most durable, and in many ways most effective and important, enemy: Canada.

So I feel both morally compelled and professionally qualified to examine the Trump administration’s interesting but far from original idea of absorbing that country into the union.

There are, as Donald Trump and Don Corleone might put it, two ways of doing this: the easy way and the hard way. The easy way would be if Canadians rose up en masse clamoring to join the United States. Even so, there would be awkwardness.

[Read: The angry Canadian]

Canada is slightly larger than America. That would mean that the “cherished 51st state,” as Trump calls it, would be lopsided in terms of territory. It would be 23 times larger than California, which would be fine for owning the libs, but it would also be 14 times larger than the Lone Star State, which would definitely cause some pursed lips and steely looks there. Messing with Texas is a bad idea.

The new state would be the largest in population too, with 40 million people—more than California by a hair, and considerably more than Texas, Florida, or New York. Its size would pose a whole bunch of problems for Trump: Canada is a much more left-wing country than the United States, and absorbing it could well revive the political fortunes of progressives. If its 10 provinces became 10 states instead of one, only three would probably vote for the GOP; the other seven would likely go for Democrats. That might mean adding six Republican senators and 14 Democrats. If Trump were impeached a third time, that might produce the supermajority required for conviction in the Senate.

But such political ramifications are purely academic considerations at the moment. Polling suggests that 85 to 90 percent of all Canadians cling to sovereignty. Having been denied the easy way of absorbing Canada, therefore, the United States might have to try the hard way, conquering the country and administering it as a territory until it is purged of Liberals, Conservatives, and whatever the Canadian equivalent of RINOs turns out to be.

Unfortunately, we have tried this before, with dismal results. In 1775, before the United States had even formally declared independence from Great Britain, it launched an invasion of Canada, hoping to make it the 14th colony. The psychological-warfare geniuses in Congress ordered that the local farmers and villagers be distributed pamphlets—translated into French—declaring, “You have been conquered into liberty,” an interesting way of putting it. Unfortunately, the Catholic farmers and villagers were largely illiterate, and their leaders, the gentry and parish priests who could read, were solidly on the side of the British against a bunch of invading Protestants.

There were moments of brilliant leadership in this invasion, particularly in a daring autumn march through Maine to the very walls of Quebec. There was also a great deal of poltroonery and bungling. The Americans had three talented generals. The first, Richard Montgomery, got killed in the opening assault on Quebec. The second, John Thomas, died of smallpox, along with many of his men. Inoculation was possible, but, like today’s vaccine skeptics, many thought it a bad idea. You can visit the capacious cemetery for the victims on Île aux Noix, now Fort Lennox, Canada.

The third general, the most talented of the lot, was Benedict Arnold, who held the expedition together even after suffering a grievous leg wound. Eventually, however, he grew disgusted with a Congress rather less craven and incompetent than its contemporary successor and became a traitor, accepting a commission as a brigadier general in the British army and fighting against American forces.

We tried again in 1812. Thomas Jefferson, the original Republican, described the acquisition of Canada as “a mere matter of marching.” This was incorrect. The United States launched eight or nine invasions of Canada during the War of 1812, winning only one fruitless battle. The rest of the time, it got walloped. For example, General William Hull, like other American commanders a superannuated veteran of the Revolution, ended up surrendering Detroit with 2,500 troops to a much smaller British and Indian force. Court-martialed for cowardice and neglect of duty in 1814, he was sentenced to death but pardoned.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is perhaps unfamiliar with the Battle of Chateaugay. The last three letters are, after all, gay, and as such, the battle has doubtless been expunged from Defense Department websites and databases, meeting the same fate as the Enola Gay. Still, it is instructive. An invading force of 2,600 American regulars encountered about 1,500 Canadian militia members, volunteers, and Mohawks under a Francophone colonel, Charles de Salaberry.  They were defeated and had to withdraw.

Since the War of 1812, Americans have not tried any formal invasions of Canada, but there was tacit and sometimes overt support for the 1837–38 revolt of the Canadian patriotes, a confrontation over Oregon (a sober look at the size of the Royal Navy dissuaded us from trying anything), and the Fenian raids of 1866 and 1870. The Fenians were rather like the Proud Boys, only better organized and all Irish, and they also ended up fleeing back over the border.

Perhaps today’s Canadians are a flimsier lot. The Canadian armed forces are quite small (the army numbers only about 42,000, including reservists), although spirited and hardy. One should note with respect that 158 Canadians were killed fighting alongside American soldiers in Afghanistan. But even if the Canadian military were overcome after some initial bloody battles, what then?

Canadians may have gone in for wokeness in recent years, it is true, but there is the matter of their bloody-minded DNA. It was not that long ago that they harvested baby seals—the ones with the big, sad, adorable brown eyes—with short iron clubs. They love hockey, a sport that would have pleased the emperors and blood-crazed plebeians and patricians of ancient Rome if they could only have figured out how to build an ice rink in the Colosseum.

[Read: Canada is taking Trump seriously and personally]

Parenthetically, there remains the problem of the First Nations (as the Canadians refer to them), whom they treated somewhat less badly than Americans treated Native Americans (as we refer to them). There are about 50,000 Mohawks straddling the U.S.-Canadian border, and they are fearless, which is why you will find them building skyscrapers at terrifying heights above the street. As members of what used to be the Iroquois Confederacy, they were ferocious warriors, and they retain a martial tradition. It is sobering to consider that they may think, with reason, that we are the illegal immigrants who have ruined the country, and therefore hold a grudge.

There is a martial spirit up north waiting to be reawakened. Members of the Trump administration may not have heard of Vimy Ridge, Dieppe, the crossing of the Sangro, Juno Beach, or the Battle of the Scheldt. Take it from a military historian: The Canadian soldiers were formidable, as were the sailors who escorted convoys across the North Atlantic and the airmen who flew in the Battle of Britain and the air war over Germany. Canada’s 44,000 dead represented a higher percentage of the population than America’s losses in the Second World War. Those who served were almost entirely volunteers.

Bottom line: It is not a good idea to invade Canada. I recommend that in order to avoid the Trump administration becoming even more of a laughingstock, Secretary Hegseth find, read, and distribute to the White House a good account of the Battle of Chateau***. It could help avoid embarrassment.

The World’s Deadliest Infectious Disease Is About to Get Worse

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › health › archive › 2025 › 03 › tuberculosis-death-usaid-trump › 682062

Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a near-perfect predator. In 1882, Robert Koch, the physician who discovered the microbe, told a room full of scientists that it caused one in seven of all deaths. In 2023, after a brief hiatus, tuberculosis regained from COVID its status as the world’s deadliest infectious disease—a title it has held for most of what we know of human history.

Some people die of TB when their lungs collapse or fill with fluid. For others, scarring leaves so little healthy lung tissue that breathing becomes impossible. Or the infection spreads to the brain or the spinal column, or they suffer a sudden, uncontrollable hemorrhage. Lack of appetite and extreme abdominal pain can fuel weight loss so severe that it whittles away muscle and bone. This is why TB was widely known as “consumption” until the 20th century—it seemed to be a disease that consumed the very body, shrinking and shriveling it. On a trip to Sierra Leone in 2019, I met a boy named Henry Reider, whose mix of shyness and enthusiasm for connection reminded me of my own son. I thought he was perhaps 9 years old. His doctors later told me that he was in fact 17, his body stunted by a combination of malnutrition and tuberculosis.

The cure for TB—roughly half a year on antibiotics—has existed since the 1950s, and works for most patients. Yet, in the decades since, more than 100 million people have died of tuberculosis because the drugs are not widely available in many parts of the world. The most proximate cause of contemporary tuberculosis deaths is not M. tuberculosis, but Homo sapiens. Now, as the Trump administration decimates foreign-aid programs, the U.S. is both making survival less likely for people with TB and risking the disease becoming far more treatment-resistant. After decades of improvement, we could return to something more like the world before the cure.

[Read: The danger of ignoring tuberculosis]

Anyone can get tuberculosis—in fact, a quarter of all humans living now, including an estimated 13 million Americans, have been infected with the bacterium, which spreads through coughs, sneezes, and breaths. Most will only ever have a latent form of the infection, in which infection-fighting white blood cells envelop the bacteria so it cannot wreak havoc on the body. But in 5 to 10 percent of infections, the immune system can’t produce enough white blood cells to surround the invader. M. tuberculosis explodes outward, and active disease begins.

Certain triggers make the disease more likely to go from latent to active, including air pollution and an immune system weakened by malnutrition, stress, or diabetes. The disease spreads especially well along the trails that poverty has blazed for it: in crowded living and working conditions such as slums and poorly ventilated factories. Left untreated, most people who develop active TB will die of the disease.

In the early 1980s, physicians and activists in Africa and Asia began sounding the alarm about an explosion of young patients dying within weeks of being infected instead of years. Hours after entering the hospital, they were choking to death on their own blood. In 1985, physicians in Zaire and Zambia noted high rates of active tuberculosis among patients who had the emerging disease now known as HIV/AIDS. TB surged globally, including in the U.S. Deaths skyrocketed. From 1985 to 2005, roughly as many people died of tuberculosis as in World War I, and many of them also had HIV. In 2000, nearly a third of the 2.3 million people who died of tuberculosis were co-infected with HIV.

[Read: Tragedy would unfold if Trump cancels Bush’s AIDS program]

By the mid-1990s, antiretroviral cocktails made HIV a treatable and survivable disease in rich communities. While a person is taking these medications, their viral levels generally become so low as to be undetectable and untransmittable; if a person with HIV becomes sick with tuberculosis, the drugs increase their odds of survival dramatically. But rich countries largely refused to spend money on HIV and TB meds in low- and middle-income countries. They cited many reasons, including that patients couldn’t be trusted to take their medication on time, and that resources would be better spent on prevention and control. In 2001, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development had this to say when explaining to Congress why many Africans would not benefit from access to HIV medications: “People do not know what watches and clocks are. They do not use Western means for telling time. They use the sun. These drugs have to be administered during a certain sequence of time during the day and when you say take it at 10:00, people will say, ‘What do you mean by 10:00?’” A 2007 review of 58 studies on patient habits found that Africans were more likely to adhere to HIV treatment regimens than North Americans.

In the mid-2000s, programs such as PEPFAR and the Global Fund finally began distributing antiretroviral therapy to millions of people living with HIV in poor countries. PEPFAR, a U.S.-funded initiative, was especially successful, saving more than 25 million lives and preventing 7 million children from being born with HIV. These projects lowered deaths and infections while also strengthening health-care systems, allowing low-income countries to better respond to diseases as varied as malaria and diabetes. Millions of lives have been saved—and tuberculosis deaths among those living with HIV have declined dramatically in the decades since.

Still, tuberculosis is great at exploiting any advantage that humans hand it. During the coronavirus pandemic, disruptions to supply chains and TB-prevention programs led to an uptick in infections worldwide. Last year, the U.S. logged more cases of tuberculosis than it has in any year since the CDC began keeping count in the 1950s. Two people died. But in some ways, at the beginning of this year, the fight against tuberculosis had never looked more promising. High-quality vaccine candidates were in late-stage trials. In December, the World Health Organization made its first endorsement of a TB diagnostic test, and global health workers readied to deploy it.

[Read: America can’t just unpause USAID]

Now that progress is on the verge of being erased. Since Donald Trump has taken office, his administration has dismantled USAID, massively eliminating foreign-aid funding and programs. According to The New York Times, hundreds of thousands of sick patients have seen their access to medication and testing suddenly cut off. A memo released by a USAID official earlier this month estimated that cases of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis will rise by about 30 percent in the next few years, an unprecedented regression in the history of humankind’s fight against the disease. (The official was subsequently placed on administrative leave.) Research on tuberculosis tests and treatments has been terminated. Although the secretary of state and Elon Musk have assured the public that the new administration’s actions have not disrupted the distribution of life-saving medicine, that just isn’t true. A colleague in central Africa sent me a picture of TB drugs that the U.S. has already paid for sitting unused in a warehouse because of stop-work orders. (Neither the State Department nor DOGE employees responded to requests for comment.)

Last year, roughly half of all international donor funding for tuberculosis treatment came from the U.S. Now many programs are disappearing. In a recent survey on the impact of lost funding in 31 countries, one in four organizations providing TB care reported they have shut down entirely. About half have stopped screening for new cases of tuberculosis. The average untreated case of active tuberculosis will spread the infection to 10 to 15 people a year. Without treatment, or even a diagnosis, hundreds of thousands more people will die—and each of those deaths will be needless.

By revoking money from global-health efforts, the U.S. has created the conditions for the health of people around the world to deteriorate, which will give tuberculosis even more opportunities to kill. HIV clinics in many countries have started rationing pills as drug supplies run dangerously low, raising the specter of co-infection. Like HIV, insufficient nutrition weakens the immune system. It is the leading risk factor for tuberculosis. An estimated 1 million children with severe acute malnutrition will lose access to treatment because of the USAID cuts, and refugee camps across the world are slashing already meager food rations.

For billions of people, TB is already a nightmare disease, both because the bacterium is unusually powerful and because world leaders have done a poor job of distributing cures. And yet, to the extent that one hears about TB at all in the rich world, it’s usually in the context of a looming crisis: Given enough time, a strain of tuberculosis may evolve that is resistant to all available antibiotics, a superbug that is perhaps even more aggressive and deadly than previous iterations of the disease.

[Read: Resistance to the antibiotic of last resort is silently spreading]

The Trump administration’s current policies are making such a future more plausible. Even pausing TB treatment for a couple of weeks can give the bacterium a chance to evolve resistance. The world is ill-prepared to respond to drug-resistant TB, because we have shockingly few treatments for the world’s deadliest infectious disease. Between 1963 and 2012, scientists approved no new drugs to treat tuberculosis. Doing so stopped being profitable once the disease ceased to be a crisis in rich countries. Many strains of tuberculosis are already resistant to the 60-year-old drugs that are still the first line of treatment for nearly all TB patients. If a person is unlucky enough to have drug-resistant TB, the next step is costly testing to determine if their body can withstand harsh, alternative treatments. The United States helped pay for those tests in many countries, which means that now fewer people with drug-resistant TB are being diagnosed or treated. Instead, they are almost certainly getting sicker and spreading the infection.

Drug-resistant TB is harder to cure in individual patients, and so the aid freeze will directly lead to many deaths. But giving the bacteria so many new opportunities to develop drug resistance is also a threat to all of humanity. We now risk the emergence of TB strains that can’t be cured with our existing tools. The millennia-long history of humans’ fight against TB has seen many vicious cycles. I fear we are watching the dawn of another.

This article has been adapted from John Green’s forthcoming book, Everything Is Tuberculosis.

Trump’s Unpredictability With Allies and Adversaries

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › national › archive › 2025 › 03 › trumps-allies-adversaries-washington-week › 682061

Editor’s Note: Washington Week With The Atlantic is a partnership between NewsHour Productions, WETA, and The Atlantic airing every Friday on PBS stations nationwide. Check your local listings, watch full episodes here, or listen to the weekly podcast here.

In the less than two months since Donald Trump took office, he has upended decades of foreign policy by targeting the country’s allies. Panelists on Washington Week With The Atlantic joined last night to discuss the effects of his policies in the U.S. and across the globe.

Meanwhile, Congress averted a government shutdown on Friday evening, passing a bill that will fund the government through September. Although Chuck Schumer of New York rallied enough votes for the bill, some Democrats now say that the minority leader capitulated to Trump. Especially among House Democrats from districts that the president carried in the election, “they feel as though he kind of left them out to dry,” Laura Barrón-López said last night.

Joining the editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, to discuss this and more: Laura Barrón-López, a White House correspondent for PBS NewsHour; Stephen Hayes, the editor of The Dispatch; and David Sanger, a White House and national-security correspondent at The New York Times.

Watch the full episode here.

The Last Great Yiddish Novel

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › magazine › archive › 2025 › 04 › chaim-grade-sons-and-daughters › 681767

This story seems to be about:

The Yiddish poet Chaim Grade survived World War II by fleeing his city, Vilna, now Vilnius, and wandering through the Soviet Union and its Central Asian republics. His wife and mother stayed behind and were murdered, probably in the Ponary forest outside Vilna, along with 75,000 others, mostly Jews. After the war, Grade moved to the United States and wrote some of the best novels in the Yiddish language, all woefully little known.

Before he left for America, however, he went back to Vilna, previously a center of Eastern European Jewish cultural, intellectual, and religious life—“the Jerusalem of Lithuania.” In his memoir, My Mother’s Sabbath Days, he describes what he found there. The impossibility of conveying in ordinary Yiddish the experience of walking through the empty streets of one’s eradicated civilization pushes Grade into a biblical register. His mother’s home is intact, he writes, but cobwebs bar his entry “like the angels with flaming swords who barred Adam and Eve from returning to Eden.”

Later, he goes to the Synagogue Courtyard. With its impressive library, ritual bath, and houses of worship great and small, it was the Lithuanian Jerusalem’s functional equivalent of the Holy Temple. Now the courtyard lies in ruins, and in his anguish, Grade’s voice takes on the proclamatory cadences of a prophet. Not just any prophet but, I think, Ezekiel, the subject of an early poem of his. Ezekiel did his prophesying from exile before and after the destruction of the First Temple in the Babylonian conquest of 586 B.C.E., another defining cataclysm in Jewish history. In Ezekiel’s most famous vision, he sees a valley full of dried bones and, channeling the words of God, raises the bones, creating an army of the resurrected. Grade wouldn’t have encountered bones—the Nazis ordered Ponary’s corpses to be dug up and burned during the war—but from under the heaps of stones come prayers, “all the prayers that Jews have uttered for hundreds of years.” He hears them without hearing them, because what screams, he says, is the silence.

[Chris Heath: A secret diary of mass murder]

Grade was born in 1910, came to the U.S. in 1948, and died in New York in 1982; he devoted the second half of his life to re-​creating the universe wiped out in the first half. He turned to prose, a form better suited than poetry to inventorying the psychological and material conditions of a complex and divided society, and he developed an almost Flaubertian passion for detail. His main subjects were poor Jews—he himself grew up in a dark cellar behind a smithy—and the hermetic world of Lithuanian Misnagdic rabbis and their yeshivas, which relatively few Yiddish writers of the time knew or wrote much about. Scholarly and strict about Jewish law, Misnagdic Jews looked down on the anti-intellectual, antinomian mysticism of Hasidic Jews. If your image of Old World Jewry comes from Grade’s contemporary Isaac Bashevis Singer, with his kabbalists, dybbuks, and elaborate rabbinic courts, swap in Lithuanian Talmudists conducting self-critique and doing pilpul—close textual analysis—in spartan houses of study.

Grade’s father was a maskil, an intellectual who adhered to the Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment, movement. But the general penury that followed World War I reduced him to working as a night watchman, and he died young, leaving Grade’s mother to support herself and Grade by selling fruit. She sent him to a yeshiva mostly because she could afford it, but also because she was devout. There he was trained in musar, a particularly rigorous—you might even say puritanical—strain of Misnagdic Judaism.

Grade studied rabbinics into his 20s, then turned secular and became a member of Young Vilna, a now-legendary group of leftist, modernist Yiddish writers. Although he never became a practicing Jew again, he didn’t turn against his teachers and their maximalist approach. On the contrary, Grade observes their fictional counterparts with a knowing, sometimes cynical, but always loving eye. He doesn’t ridicule them, at least not unduly, nor does he apologize on their behalf, and their single-minded pursuit of Torah can be inspiring.

Grade’s novels aren’t oracular, the way the section on postwar Vilna in his memoir was. But his ambition is still biblical. I don’t think the word overreaches. The Torah, thought to have been compiled over centuries in response to catastrophes and traumas, including that same Babylonian exile, is also a product of the impulse to preserve memories and knowledge all but lost in a calamity, lest the dispersed Jews forget who they’d been. Grade considered his undertaking a sort of holy assignment. “I’ve always found it strange that I have so little faith and yet believe, with complete faith, that Providence saved me and allowed me to live, in order to immortalize the great generation that I knew,” he wrote in a letter in 1977.

Another striking feature of Grade’s fiction is that it almost never acknowledges the imminent annihilation of the world it so meticulously reconstructs—as if by ignoring that obscene fact, he could annul it. “The mission of his prose after the war is to undo the Holocaust through literature, if you can imagine such a thing,” the historian David Fishman, a friend of Grade’s and lifelong champion of his work, said at a 2012 conference on the writer at the Yiddish Book Center.

The risk writers run when they set out to memorialize is that they’ll produce memorials, not literature. Grade didn’t do that. His novels jam almost too much life into their pages. That’s not a criticism, because the streets of prewar Jewish Eastern Europe also jostled and overflowed; Grade’s prose mimetically reproduces the way Jews thronged in their tight quarters. His major accomplishment, though, is at the level of the individual characters. They’re vortices of ambivalence, anxious and raw and at odds with themselves, hypercritical yet hypersensitive, repressed but not undersexed, subject to delusions of grandeur or abasement or both in turns. On the whole, they’re good people. They scheme and bicker and get on one another’s nerves, and yet they have deep family feeling, and few of his protagonists wholly free themselves from a yearning for contact with the divine. The dominant emotion in a Grade novel is tortured loyalty.

Sons and Daughters is Grade’s last novel, and the most recent of his fictional works to be translated and published. He wrote it in weekly installments that appeared in Yiddish newspapers, with intermittent interruptions, from 1965 to 1976. When he died a few years later, Grade had adapted some of the columns into the first volume of a novel, but hadn’t finished the second. Neither the first nor the uncompleted second volume saw the light of day until they were brought out this year as a single novel in an English translation by Rose Waldman.

Sons and Daughters unfolds during the early 1930s, primarily in shtetls in what was then Poland and is now mostly Lithuania and Belarus. It tells the stories of two families of rabbis that are fragmenting under the pressure of modernity. The rabbis, both of high repute, belong to different generations and display differing levels of stringency—the stricter is a grandfather; the other, his son-in-law, is more lenient but by no means lax. Both expect their own sons to become rabbis too, or at least Torah scholars, and their daughters to marry men of the same ilk. I can’t emphasize enough the intensity of the obligation felt by Jewish parents of the time to make sure that they vouchsafed a life of Torah to their children.

Predictably, the children have other ideas. One daughter, loving but stubborn, leaves for Vilna to study nursing. The youngest son, the darling of both families, upsets his father and grandfather by openly aspiring to join the halutzim, or Zionist pioneers; the pious Jews of the day abhorred Zionists because they had the audacity to try to found a state in the Holy Land without the intervention of the Messiah. Even worse, Zionists cast off religious strictures, dressing immodestly and eating treyf (nonkosher) food. The most treyf of the sons is not a Zionist, though. He goes to Switzerland for a doctorate in philosophy, marries a non-Jewish Swiss woman, and doesn’t circumcise their son. Whether his parents realize the extent of his apostasy isn’t clear. The way the family avoids talking about it, you might think that confronting it directly would kill them.

The theme of intergenerational conflict may sound familiar to anyone who is acquainted with Sholem Aleichem’s canonical “Tevye the Milkman” stories, or has seen Fiddler on the Roof, which is based on them—or, for that matter, has read Ivan Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons, or even D. H. Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers. The battle between parents and wayward children is the archetypal plot of modernization. But Grade has his own approach to it. Sholem Aleichem, the most important figure in the late-19th-century Yiddish renaissance, tells it from the father’s—Tevye’s—point of view. As Ruth Wisse points out in her study of Sholem Aleichem in The Modern Jewish Canon, all of his contemporaries writing on the same topic, in Yiddish or Hebrew or a non-Jewish language, more or less side with the rebels.

Grade doesn’t wholeheartedly endorse the values of either generation, though he is slightly more sympathetic to the parents. That makes sense: Nothing strengthens the case for tradition more than its destruction. The parents draw us into their earnest struggle to repress their horror at their children’s deviations from religious norms. The wife of the younger couple plays deaf and lets disturbing information slide by. Her husband, Sholem Shachne Katzenellenbogen, makes a valiant effort not to recriminate; he blames himself for his children’s choices. Would that he were a simple Jew in a poor village, Sholem Shachne thinks. Then he wouldn’t have spoiled his children.

His father-in-law, the more severe Rabbi Eli-Leizer Epstein, is not in the habit of second-guessing himself, and he will be harshly punished for his dogmatism by a deranged son. The son is his father’s fiendish double, an antic, self-loathing imp who, loudly proclaiming his adoration of Eli-Leizer, makes a mockery of him. This character may be Grade’s most magnificently grotesque creation, half demon, half schlemiel. His get-rich schemes end in disgrace; his marriage to a wealthy heiress bankrupts and breaks her. They move back to his hometown, ostensibly to run a store selling fancy china bequeathed to her by her father (which no one in the poor village wants, and which will soon be smashed to pieces), but really to stalk his father and demolish his reputation. Eli-Leizer comes to understand that his son’s aim is to hold up a hideously distorting mirror before him, “bringing him untold humiliation with the mimicking of his piety and his zealotry.”

Eventually parents and children start to soften toward each other, but because Grade didn’t finish the second volume, we don’t know for sure whether or how he would have resolved the tensions. In any case, as readers know even if the characters don’t, the Germans would occupy eastern Poland in a few short years, making all other concerns irrelevant. In the background, Grade tracks the whirlwind of history as it picks up speed. Jewish socialist youth groups parade through the marketplace and put on a tumbling show that highlights their muscular and shockingly exposed limbs (they wear shorts). More menacingly, anti-Semitic Polish-nationalist hooligans have mounting success enforcing a boycott against Jewish merchants in villages across the region. All of this really happened in the ’30s.

Toward the end of the book, Grade unites life and fiction in the character of a lapsed yeshiva bocher (student) named Khlavneh who has become a Yiddish poet. He is the fiancé of Sholem Shachne’s daughter, the one who went to Vilna to study nursing. Lest we fail to grasp that Khlavneh is a self-portrait, Grade drops hints. The daughter, for instance—an attractive, spirited woman, perhaps the most appealing figure in the novel—is named Bluma Rivtcha, a rhyming echo of Frumme-Liebe, the name of Grade’s murdered first wife, also a nurse and also the daughter of a rabbi.

Bluma Rivtcha brings Khlavneh home to meet the family. Over Shabbos dinner, the brother who moved to Switzerland and no longer observes Jewish laws ridicules him for writing poetry in “jargon”—that is, Yiddish, the bastard language of the uneducated Jew, “a common person, an ignoramus, a boor”—rather than in Hebrew, and for thinking that he and his fellow Yiddish writers could capture the spirit and poetry of Jewish life without following Jewish law themselves. Khlavneh refutes the brother in a brilliant show of erudition, then concludes: “You hate the jargon boys and girls because they have the courage to be different from their fathers and grandfathers, even to wage battles with their fathers and grandfathers, and yet, they don’t run away from home.” The father, who everyone thinks will be offended by a guest’s outburst at the Sabbath table, laughs in delight. Grade, having fashioned a world in which the old fights mattered, now gets to win them.

In Grade’s lifetime, he was considered one of the most important living Yiddish novelists—by those who could read Yiddish. When Isaac Bashevis Singer won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1978, some fellow Yiddish writers believed it should have gone to Grade instead. (In a 1974 review, Elie Wiesel had called him “one of the great—if not the greatest—of living Yiddish novelists,” and “the most authentic.”) But he never received the wider recognition he deserved. In 1969, Cynthia Ozick published a short story in Commentary called “Envy; or, Yiddish in America,” which paints a comi-tragic picture of a literary universe that has room for only one famous Yiddish writer. An obscure Yiddish poet in New York named Edelshtein rages against an old friend and enemy—Ostrover, another Yiddish writer in New York—who is internationally acclaimed for his colorful tales of love and sexual perversion, dybbuks and other folkloric creatures. In a harassing late-night call, Edelshtein howls at Ostrover that the murder of Yiddish has turned him into a ghost who doesn’t even know he’s dead.

[From the January 1979 issue: Lance Morrow on the spirited world of I. B. Singer]

Ostrover is Singer, of course, and Edelshtein could have been Grade. Some scholars think he was; others say he was modeled on another forgotten genius, the poet Jacob Glatstein. Ozick herself once said that she’d based Edelshtein at least partially on an uncle, a Hebrew poet. Whichever writer she had in mind, it was a pitch-perfect portrayal of Grade’s situation. And he suffered an additional indignity: His name was posthumously all but erased by his widow, Inna. For whatever reasons, including possible mental instability, she foiled almost every attempt to publish his work, whether in Yiddish or in translation. After his death, she signed a contract with his English-language publisher Knopf to bring out Sons and Daughters (under a different title, The Rabbi’s House), but then she stopped responding to the book’s editor and the project stalled. His unpublished work became available to the public only after she died, in 2010.

In the four decades since Grade’s death, Yiddish has had a revival. Chairs in Yiddish have been endowed at major universities. Klezmer is cool. The number of haredim, or ultra-Orthodox Jews, who grow up speaking Yiddish has risen and keeps rising: The haredi community has the highest rate of growth in the Jewish world. To be sure, none of this guarantees that Grade will finally get his due. As a rule, haredim don’t engage with secular texts. And many of those who learn the language in college or read it in translation are drawn to it because it’s coded as politically and sexually radical. In the old days, Yiddish—especially written Yiddish—was associated with women, who were not taught Hebrew. Yiddish literature and theater had their golden age in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when a Jewish left and a Jewish avant-garde defiantly embraced the then-stigmatized dialect. Today, it appeals to some in search of an alternative Judaism: Yiddish is not Hebrew, and therefore not Israeli. In the latest twist in the singular history of Yiddish, it has become the emblematic language of Jewish diasporism, the quest to reinvent a Judaism without a Jewish homeland.

Grade’s work, however, is not radical. He dabbled in socialism in Vilna, but then he encountered Soviet Communism. He wrote sympathetically about women and created formidable female characters, but his protagonists are mostly male (as is rabbinic society), and I wouldn’t call him a feminist. Nor does Grade’s account of life in prewar Europe support the diasporist claim that Jews would be perfectly safe without a state.

In the introduction to Sons and Daughters, Adam Kirsch calls it “probably the last great Yiddish novel.” In all likelihood, he’s right, but I like to think that a vibrant Yiddish literary culture just might emerge from the ranks of the religious, as it did in 19th-century Europe. Ex-haredim such as Shalom Auslander are writing remarkable memoirs and novels. Admittedly, they’re in English. Any real renaissance of the Yiddish novel would require a critical mass of native Yiddish speakers and writers, who almost certainly would have to come from ultra-Orthodox enclaves—which is not unimaginable. Hasidim are already producing historical and adventure novels in Yiddish.

In 2022, the Forward ran an essay by Yossi Newfield, who was raised as a Hasidic Jew, about his discovery of Grade’s novel The Yeshiva: “The struggles Grade so masterfully described between faith and doubt, between Torah and the world, in his words, di kloyz un di gas, were my own.” Intentionally or not, Newfield echoed something Grade wrote in a letter in 1973: “The writer inside me is a thoroughly ancient Jew, while the man inside me wants to be thoroughly modern. This is my calamity, plain and simple, a struggle I cannot win.” The struggle may be an affliction, but it fueled Grade’s masterpieces. Who knows? The next great Yiddish novelist may be growing up in haredi Brooklyn right now.

This article appears in the April 2025 print edition with the headline “The Last Great Yiddish Novel.”

Columbia University’s Anti-Semitism Problem

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2025 › 03 › columbia-antisemitism-israel-palestine-trump › 682054

This story seems to be about:

In January, when the historian Avi Shilon returned to Columbia University from winter break, a thought coursed through his mind: If calm can take hold in Gaza, then perhaps it could also happen in Morningside Heights. Just a few days earlier, in time for the start of the semester, Hamas and Israel had brokered a cease-fire in their war.

Over the many months of that war, Columbia was the site of some of America’s most vitriolic protests against Israel’s actions, and even its existence. For two weeks last spring, an encampment erected by anti-Israel demonstrators swallowed the fields in the center of the compact Manhattan campus. Nobody could enter Butler Library without hearing slogans such as “Globalize the intifada!” and “We don’t want no Zionists here!” and “Burn Tel Aviv to the ground!” At the end of April, students, joined by sympathizers from outside the university gates, stormed Hamilton Hall—which houses the undergraduate-college deans’ offices—and then battled police when they sought to clear the building. Because of the threat of spiraling chaos, the university canceled its main commencement ceremony in May.

Shilon felt that the tamping of hostilities in Gaza made the moment ripe for the course he was scheduled to teach, “History of Modern Israel,” which would examine the competing Jewish and Palestinian narratives about his native country’s founding.

But Columbia soon disabused him of his hopes. About 30 minutes into the first session of his seminar, four people, their faces shrouded in keffiyehs, burst into his classroom. A protester circled the seminar table, flinging flyers in front of Shilon’s students. One flyer bore an image of a boot stomping on a Star of David; another stated, The Enemy Will Not See Tomorrow.

In the Israeli universities where Shilon had studied and taught, he was accustomed to strident critiques of the country. Sometimes he even found himself sympathizing with them. Taking up difficult arguments struck him as the way to navigate tense disagreements, so he rose from his chair and gingerly approached the protesters. “You’re invited to learn,” he told them.

But the protesters ignored him. As one held up a camera to film, another stared at it and delivered a monologue in which she described Shilon’s class—which had barely progressed beyond a discussion of expectations for the semester—as an example of “Columbia University’s normalization of genocide.”

After she finished her speech, the demonstrators left the room, but a sense of intrusion lingered. Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the umbrella group that organized protests on campus, posted a video of the action, with the caption: “We disrupted a zionist class, and you should too.” The university later offered to provide security for Shilon’s class because it couldn’t be sure if CUAD was bluffing.

Over the past two years, Columbia’s institutional life has become more and more absurd. Confronted with a war on the other side of the world, the course of which the university has zero capacity to affect, a broad swath of the community acted as if the school’s trustees and administrators could determine the fate of innocent families in Gaza. To force the university into acceding to demands—ending study abroad in Israel, severing a partnership with Tel Aviv University, divesting from companies with holdings in Israel––protesters attempted to shut down campus activity. For the sake of entirely symbolic victories, they were willing to risk their academic careers and even arrest.

Because the protesters treated the war as a local issue, they trained their anger on Jewish and Israeli students and faculty, including Shilon, some of whom have been accused of complicity with genocide on the basis of their religious affiliation or national origin. More than any other American university, Columbia experienced a breakdown in the fabric of its community that demanded a firm response from administrators—but these administrators tended to choke on their own fears.

Many of the protesters followed university rules governing demonstrations and free expression. Many others did not. Liberal administrators couldn’t or wouldn’t curb the illiberalism in their midst. By failing to discipline protesters who transgressed university rules, they signaled that disrupting classrooms carried no price. By tolerating professors who bullied students who disagreed with them, they signaled that incivility and even harassment were acceptable forms of discourse.

It was as if Columbia was reliving the bedlam of 1968, which included a student takeover of the university and scarred the institution for decades. And just like in the Vietnam era, the university became a ripe target for demagogues on the right, who are eager to demolish the prestige of elite higher education. And now that Donald Trump and his allies control the federal government, they have used anti-Semitism as a pretext for damaging an institution that they abhor. In the name of rescuing the Jews of Columbia, the Trump administration cut off $400 million in federal contracts and grants to the university. Trump officials then sent a letter demanding—as preconditions for restoring the funds—a series of immediate, far-reaching steps, including suspending and expelling Hamilton Hall protesters, producing a plan to overhaul admissions, and putting the school’s Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies under “academic receivership.”

Mark Rudd, president of Students for a Democratic Society, addresses students at Columbia University in May 1968. (Hulton Archive / Getty)

And in an attempt to suppress political views it dislikes, the administration authorized the unlawful detention of Mahmoud Khalil, an alumnus who helped organize campus protests, and sent federal agents to search two dorm rooms. Another graduate student, targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, fled to Canada rather than risk apprehension. The Trump administration’s war on Columbia stands to wreck research, further inflame tensions on campus, and destroy careers—including, in a supreme irony, those of many Jewish academics, scientists, physicians, and graduate students whom the administration ostensibly wants to protect.

Trump’s autocratic presence unbalances every debate. But just because his administration is exploiting the issue of anti-Semitism does not mean that anti-Jewish activism is not an issue at Columbia. Somewhere along the way, one of the nation’s greatest universities lost its capacity to conduct intellectual arguments over contentious issues without resorting to hyperbole and accusations of moral deficiency.

On Israel, the issue that most sharply divides Columbia, such accusations took a sinister cast. Jewish students faced ostracism and bullying that, if experienced by any other group of students  on campus, would be universally regarded as unacceptable. It was a crisis that became painfully evident in the course of the war over Gaza, but it didn’t begin with the war, and it won’t end with it.

The story of American Jewry can be told, in part, by the history of Columbia’s admissions policy. At the turn of the 20th century, when entry required merely passing an exam, the sons of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe began rushing into the institution. By 1920, Columbia was likely 40 percent Jewish. This posed a marketing problem for the school, as the children of New York’s old knickerbocker elite began searching out corners of the Ivy League with fewer Brooklyn accents.

To restore Anglo-Saxon Protestant demographic dominance, university president Nicholas Murray Butler invented the modern college-application process, in which concepts such as geographic diversity and a well-rounded student body became pretexts to weed out studious Jews from New York City. In 1921, Columbia became the first private college to impose a quota limiting the number of Jews. (In the ’30s, Columbia rejected Richard Feynman, who later won a Nobel Prize in physics, and Isaac Asimov, the great science fiction writer.) Columbia, however, was intent on making money off the Jews it turned away, so to educate them, it created Seth Low Junior College in Brooklyn, a second-rate version of the Manhattan institution.

Only after World War II, when America fought a war against Nazism, did this exclusionary system wither away. When I attended Columbia for four blissful years, a generation or so ago, the school was a Jewish wonderland, where I first encountered the pluralism of American Jewish life. I became friends with red-diaper babies, kids raised in Jewish socialist families. I dated an Orthodox woman who had converted from evangelical Christianity. Several floors of my dorm had been nicknamed Anatevka, after the shtetl in Fiddler on the Roof; they had kosher kitchens, and on the Sabbath, the elevators would automatically stop on each of those floors. I studied Yiddish with a doyenne of the dying Yiddish theater and attended lectures with Yosef Yerushalmi, one of the great Jewish historians of his generation. At Columbia, for the first time in my life, I felt completely at home in my identity.

I also imbibed the university’s protest culture: I briefly helped take over Hamilton Hall in the name of preserving the Audubon Ballroom, the Upper Manhattan site of Malcolm X’s assassination. Columbia wanted to convert the building into a research center. The leader of our movement, Benjamin Jealous, who went on to head the NAACP, was suspended for his role; I was put on probation.

Nostalgia, however, is a distorting filter. Long before the October 7 attack by Hamas on southern Israel that sparked the subsequent invasion of Gaza, there were accusations of anti-Semitism on campus. I tended to wish them away, but after the Hamas attack, the evidence kept walloping me.

Although protests against Israel erupted on many campuses after October 7, the collision between Zionists and anti-Zionists was especially virulent at Columbia. Less than a week after the attack, a woman was arrested in front of the library for allegedly beating an Israeli student who was hanging posters of hostages held in Gaza. (The Manhattan district attorney found that the woman hadn’t intentionally hit the student and dismissed the case after she apologized and agreed to counseling.)

Soon after the war in Gaza began, the Columbia Daily Spectator interviewed more than 50 Jewish students about their experiences: 13 told the student newspaper that they had been attacked or harassed; 12 admitted that they had obscured markers of their Jewish identity, tucking away Star of David necklaces and hiding kippot under caps to avoid provoking the ire of fellow students.

To Columbia’s misfortune, the university had a new president, Minouche Shafik, who’d arrived by way of the London School of Economics. Any leader would have been overwhelmed by the explosion of passions, but she seemed especially shell-shocked by the rancor—and how it attracted media, activists, and politicians, all exploiting the controversy for their own purposes. Panicked leaders, without any clear sense of their own direction, have a rote response: They appoint a task force. And in November 2023, Shafik appointed some of Columbia’s most eminent academics to assess the school’s anti-Semitism problem. (Shafik had hoped to have a parallel task force on Islamophobia, but Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia historian and the most prominent Palestinian scholar in the country, called the idea a “fig leaf to pretend that they are ‘balanced,’” and the idea never hatched.)

In “listening sessions” with students, task-force members heard one recurring complaint: that administrators were strangely indifferent to Jewish students complaining about abuse. Rather than investigating incidents, some administrators steered Jewish students to mental-health counseling, as if they needed therapy to toughen them up. Students who had filed official reports of bias with the university claimed that they’d never heard back. (To protect the privacy of listening-session participants, the task force never confirmed specific instances, but it deemed the complaints credible.)

Perhaps, early on, one could imagine benign explanations for the weak response. But in June, as the task force went about its investigation, The Washington Free Beacon reported on a series of text messages fired off by four Columbia deans as they attended a panel on Jewish life at Columbia. (A panel attendee who had sat behind one of the administrators had surreptitiously photographed the text thread over her shoulder.) Instead of sympathetically listening to panelists discuss anti-Semitism, the deans unwittingly confirmed the depth of the problem. These officials, whose role gave them responsibility for student safety, snarkily circulated accusations about the pernicious influence of Jewish power. “Amazing what $$$ can do,” one of the deans wrote. Another accused the head of campus Hillel of playing up complaints for the sake of fundraising. “Comes from such a place of privilege,” one of them moaned. After the Free Beacon published the screenshots, Columbia suspended three of the administrators. Not long after, they resigned.

A month later, at the beginning of the academic year, the task force published a damning depiction of quotidian student life. An especially powerful section of the report described the influence of Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the organizer of the anti-Israel protests. CUAD was a coalition of 116 tuition-supported, faculty-advised student groups, including the university mariachi band and the Barnard Garden Club.

CUAD doesn’t simply oppose war and occupation; it endorses violence as the pathway to its definition of liberation. A year ago, a Columbia student activist told an audience watching him on Instagram, “Be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.” At first, CUAD dissociated itself from the student. But then the group reconsidered and apologized for its momentary lapse of stridency. “Violence is the only path forward,” CUAD said in an official statement. That wasn’t a surprising admission; its public statements regularly celebrate martyrdom.

When groups endorsed CUAD, they forced Jewish students to confront a painful choice. To participate in beloved activities, they needed to look past the club’s official membership in an organization that endorsed the killing of Jews and the destruction of the world’s only Jewish-majority country.

According to the task force, complaining about the alliance with CUAD or professing sympathy for Israel could lead to a student being purged from an extracurricular activity. When a member of the dance team questioned the wisdom of supporting CUAD, she was removed from the organization’s group chats and effectively kicked off the team. A co-president of Sewa, a Sikh student group, says that she was removed from her post because of her alleged Zionism. In an invitation to a film screening, the founder of an LGBTQ group, the LezLions, wrote, “Zionists aren’t invited.”

I’m not suggesting that Jews at Columbia feel constantly under siege. When I gave a speech at the campus Hillel group last spring, many members, even some who are passionate supporters of Israel, told me that they are happy at Columbia and have never personally experienced anything resembling anti-Semitism. The pro-Palestinian encampments included Jewish protesters, some of whom received abuse from their fellow Jews. To the task force’s credit, its report acknowledges many such complexities, but it brimmed with accounts of disturbing incidents worthy of a meaningful official response. Unfortunately, that’s not the Columbia way.

Had I been wiser as an undergrad, I could have squinted and seen the roots of the current crisis. In the 1990s, Israel was a nonissue on campus: The Oslo peace process was in high gear, and a two-state solution and coexistence were dreams within reach. But the most imposing academic celebrity on campus was the Jerusalem-born Edward Said, a brilliant professor of literature, who had served as a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s legislative arm.

During my years at Columbia, Said, who was battling cancer, was a remote figure. A dandy who loved his tweeds and was immersed in the European cosmopolitanism that he critiqued, he taught only a course on Giuseppe Verdi and imperialism.

Still, he bestrode the university. His masterwork, Orientalism, was one of the few books by an active Columbia professor regularly included in the college’s core curriculum. That book, by the university’s most acclaimed professor, was also a gauntlet thrown in the community’s face. Said had convincingly illustrated how racism infected the production of knowledge in Middle Eastern studies. Even if scholarship paraded as the disinterested study of foreign cultures, it was inherently political, too often infected by a colonialist mindset.

To correct for that bias, admirers of Said’s book concluded, universities needed to hire a different style of academic, including scholars with roots in the region they studied, not just a bunch of white guys fascinated by Arabs. The Middle Eastern–studies department filled with Said protégés, who lacked his charm but taught with ferocious passion. Because they were unabashed activists, these new scholars had no compunction about, say, canceling class so that students could attend pro-Palestinian rallies.

Joseph Massad, a Jordanian-born political scientist who wrote a history of nationalism in his native country, became the most notorious of the new coterie soon after arriving in 1999. His incendiary comments provoked his ideological foes to respond with fury and, sometimes, to unfairly twist his quotes in the course of their diatribes. But his actual record was clear enough. Writing in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram in 2003, he accused the Israelis of being the true anti-Semites, because they destroyed the culture of the Jewish diaspora; the Palestinians were the real Jews, he argued, because they were being massacred.

Violence, when directed at Jews, never seemed to bother him. This moral vacuity was on full display in the column he wrote in response to October 7, which he called a “resistance offensive,” for The Electronic Intifada, a Chicago-based publication aligned with the more radical wing of the Palestinian cause. His essay used a series of euphoric adjectives—“astonishing,” “astounding,” “awesome”—to describe Hamas’s invasion, without ever condemning, let alone mentioning, the gruesome human toll of the massacre, which included rape and the kidnapping of babies. In fact, he coldly described the towns destroyed by Hamas as “settler-colonies.”

Massad has long been accused of carrying that polemical style into the classroom. In the course description for a class called “Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies,” he wrote in 2002: “The purpose of the course is not to provide a ‘balanced’ coverage of the views of both sides.” On the one hand, that’s an admirable admission. On the other hand, Jewish students complained that he treated those with dissenting opinions as if they were moral reprobates, unworthy of civility.

In 2004, a pro-Israel group in Boston put together a low-budget documentary called Columbia Unbecoming, which strung together student testimony about the pedagogical style of Columbia’s Middle Eastern–studies program. To take two representative incidents: After an Israeli student asked Massad a question at an extracurricular event, the professor demanded to know how many Palestinians he had killed; a woman recounted how another professor, George Saliba, had told her not to opine on Israel-Palestine questions because her green eyes showed that she couldn’t be a “Semite.”

In response, Massad denied ever meeting the Israeli student; Saliba wrote that he didn’t recall the green-eyes comments and that the student might have misconstrued what he was saying. But Columbia’s then-president, Lee Bollinger, instantly recognized the problem and appointed his own task force to examine the complaints. But it would have taken more than a task force to address the underlying problem. The emerging style of the American academy, especially prevalent at Columbia, viewed activism flowing from moral absolutes as integral to the mission of the professoriat. But a style that prevailed in African American–studies and gender-studies departments was incendiary when applied to Israel. With race and gender, there was largely a consensus on campus, but Israel divided the university community. And as much as Bollinger professed to value dissenting opinions, his university was ill-equipped to accommodate two conflicting points of view. And the gap between those two points of view kept growing, as Said’s legacy began to seep into even the far reaches of Columbia.

If I were writing a satiric campus novel about Columbia, I would have abandoned the project on January 29. That’s the day the Spectator published lab notes for an introductory astronomy course, written by a teaching assistant, that instructed students: “As we watch genocide unfold in Gaza, it is also important to tell the story of Palestinians outside of being the subjects of a military occupation. Take 15 minutes or so to read through the articles ‘Wonder and the Life of Palestinian Astronomy’ and ‘In Gaza, Scanning the Sky for Stars, Not Drones.’ Remind yourself that our dreams, our wonders, our aspirations … are not any more worthy.” At Columbia, a student couldn’t contemplate the Big Dipper without being forced to consider the fate of Khan Yunis.

This was a minor scandal, but a representative one. Over the years, the subject of Israel became nearly inescapable at Columbia, even in disciplines seemingly far removed from Gaza. For a swath of graduate students and professors, Palestinian liberation—and a corollary belief that Israel is uniquely evil among nations—became something close to civic religion.

In 2023, at the School of Public Health, a professor who taught a section of its core curriculum to more than 400 students denounced Jewish donors to the university as “wealthy white capitalists” who laundered “blood money” through the school. He hosted a panel on the “settler-colonial determinants of health” that described “Israel-Palestine” as a primary example of a place where the “right to health” can never be realized. Several years ago, the Graduate School of Architecture, Preservation and Planning offered a class on “Architecture and Settler Colonialism” and hosted an event titled “Architecture Against Apartheid.”

By insisting that Israel is the great moral catastrophe of our age, professors and graduate students transmitted their passions to their classes. So it is not surprising that Jewish students with sympathy for Israel found themselves subject to social opprobrium not just from their teachers, but also from their peers. In its September report, the task force that Shafik had convened described the problem starkly: “We heard about students being avoided and avoiding others” and about “isolation and even intimidation in classrooms, bullying, threats, stereotypes, ethnic slurs, disqualification from opportunities, fear of retaliation and community erosion.” This was the assessment of Columbia professors, many of them unabashed liberals, who risked alienating colleagues by describing the situation bluntly.

Pro-Palestinian protesters march around Columbia in April 2024. (Michael M. Santiago / Getty)

In September, the task force presented its findings to Columbia’s University Senate, an elected deliberative body that brings faculty, administrators, and students into the governance of the institution. Its creation was a utopian response to the 1968 protests. But the senate session about anti-Semitism was a fiasco. Almost from the start, members began to attack the task-force report’s motives and methodology—even its focus on discrimination against Jews. “No such resources were put into covering anybody else’s subjective experience on this campus,” the English professor Joseph Slaughter said, “and I think that creates real problems for the community.” The hostility to the report wasn’t meaningless fulmination; it was evidence of how a large part of the faculty was determined to prevent the university from acknowledging the presence of anti-Jewish activity in the school.

No other university has a governance structure quite like Columbia’s, and for good reason. Most academics with busy lives want to avoid endless meetings with their colleagues, so most professors aren’t rushing to join the senate. In recent years, the senate has attracted those of an activist bent, who are willing to put up with tedium in service of a higher cause. Two members of the rules committee were allegedly part of a faculty contingent that stood guard around the encampments on the quad. They did so even though they had jurisdiction over potentially disciplining those protesters. As it happens, exceedingly few of the protesters who flagrantly disregarded university rules have suffered any consequences for their actions. Columbia didn’t impose discipline on students who stormed Hamilton Hall last spring—at least not until last week, amid Trump’s threat of drastic cuts to the university. But by then, a culture of impunity was firmly rooted.

Barnard College is integrated into Columbia, but it has its own set of rules, its own governance structure and disciplinary procedures. And it acted swiftly to expel two of the students who were in the group that burst into Avi Shilon’s class in January. (Columbia had suspended another participant, pending an investigation, and failed to identify the other.) For once, it felt as if the university was upholding its basic covenant with its students: to protect the sanctity of the classroom.

But instead of changing anyone’s incentives, Barnard’s hard-line punishment inspired protesters to rush Millbank Hall, banging drums and chanting, “There is only one solution, intifada revolution.” In the course of storming the building, they allegedly assaulted a Barnard employee, sending him to the hospital. For more than six hours, they shut down the building, which houses the offices of the administration, and left only after the college threatened to bring in the police and offered an official meeting with the protesters. But the possibility of police action wasn’t a sufficient deterrent, because a week later, two dozen protesters returned to occupy Barnard’s library.

In some deep sense, the university had lost the capacity to reassert control, let alone confront the root causes of the chaos. And looking back over the past few months, I see a pattern of events that, in some ways, is far more troubling than the encampments that received so many headlines. In November, protesters descended on the building that houses Hillel, the center of Jewish life on campus—its main purpose is to provide Jewish students with religious services and kosher food—and demanded that the university sever ties with the organization. The next month, a demonstrator marching up Broadway punched a kippah-wearing Jew in the face. In January, to memorialize the murder of a Palestinian girl, protesters filled the toilets of the School of International and Public Affairs with cement. Skewering two Jewish women affiliated with the school—its dean, Keren Yarhi-Milo, and an adjunct assistant professor at the school, Rebecca Weiner—they spray-painted the message “Keren eat Weiner,” with an image of feces.

All of this unfolded as the Trump administration launched an assault on higher education. But thus far, Columbia students haven’t bothered to protest that. Unlike Palestine, which for most students is a distant cause, the stripping of federal funding for the institution will ripple through the lives of students and faculty. But university activism has its sights obsessively locked on Israel.

That Trump assault on Columbia has now arrived, in the heaviest-handed form. Anti-Semitism on campus, a problem that merits a serious response, has been abused in the course of Trump’s quest to remake America in his image. Tellingly, the administration’s withholding of federal grants will fall hardest on the hard sciences, which are the part of the university most immune to anti-Semitism, and hardly touch the humanities, where overwrought criticisms of Israel flourish.

The indiscriminate, punitive nature of Trump’s meddling may unbalance Columbia even further. A dangerous new narrative has emerged there and on other campuses: that the new federal threats result from “fabricated charges of antisemitism,” as CUAD recently put it, casting victims of harassment as the cunning villains of the story. In this atmosphere, Columbia seems unlikely to reckon with the deeper causes of anti-Jewish abuse on its campus. But in its past—especially in its history of overcoming its discriminatory treatment of Jews—the institution has revealed itself capable of overcoming its biases, conscious and otherwise, against an excluded group. It has shown that it can stare hard at itself, channel its highest values, and find its way to a better course.

How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › politics › archive › 2025 › 03 › trump-tariffs-high-prices › 682057

After spending most of the 2024 campaign blaming Democrats for inflation and insisting that tariffs don’t increase prices, Donald Trump and his allies have a new economic message: High prices are good.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, for example, recently admitted to the Economic Club of New York that inflation-weary Americans could see a “one-time price adjustment” from Trump’s tariffs, but he quickly added that “access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream.” Representative Mark Alford of Missouri told CNN, “We all have a role to play in this to rightsize our government, and if I have to pay a little bit more for something, I’m all for it to get America right again.” And Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick put his own spin on the argument, telling NBC News that, yes, prices on imports will rise, but American-made goods will get cheaper, and that’s what matters. (In fact, tariffs generally lead to price increases for imported and domestic goods, because the latter face less foreign-price competition.)

It’s true that affordable goods and services are not, on their own, the definition of the American dream. But they’re a necessary component of it, and trade is one of the most important drivers of that affordability. Until recently, Republicans understood this quite well.

American workers are also American consumers who must devote a sizable chunk of their income to essential goods such as clothing, food, shelter, and energy—goods made cheaper and more plentiful by international trade. Produce and clothing from Latin America, lumber and energy from Canada, footwear and electronics from Asia, wine and cheese from Europe: All of these and more help Americans stretch their paychecks and live happier, healthier lives. Thanks to the internet, moreover, we benefit from internationally traded services too, whether it’s an online tutor in Pakistan, a personal trainer in London, a help-desk employee in India, or an accountant in the Philippines. And we gain from better or cheaper domestic goods and services that are forced to compete with imports on quality or price.

Overall, studies conservatively estimate that American households save thousands of dollars a year from the lower prices, increased variety, and global competition fomented by international trade. This increased purchasing power means not only that Americans have more “stuff” but also that their inflation-adjusted incomes are higher. As we just learned the hard way, bigger numbers on your paycheck mean nothing if you’re forced to spend even more on the things you need and want. In fact, one of the big reasons Americans’ inflation-adjusted wages have climbed in recent decades is that the exorbitant prices of things such as housing, health care, and education have been offset by significant declines for tradable goods such as toys, clothing, and consumer electronics. Money left over can also be saved for a rainy day or invested in things such as education and retirement.

[Rogé Karma: Trump’s most inexplicable decision yet]

The counterargument—until recently associated with the political left—is that cheap and varied consumer goods are not worth sacrificing the strength of America’s domestic-manufacturing sector. Even if we accept that (questionable) premise, however, it doesn’t justify Trump’s tariffs, because those tariffs will hurt domestic manufacturing too. About half of U.S. imports are intermediate goods, raw materials, and capital equipment that American manufacturers use to make their products and sell them here and abroad. Contrary to conventional wisdom, these imports increase domestic-manufacturing output and jobs. Thus, for example, an expanding U.S. trade deficit in automotive goods has long coincided with gains in domestic automotive output and production capacity, and past U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum caused a slowdown in U.S. manufacturing output. Even if domestic manufacturers don’t buy imported parts, simply having access to them serves as an important competitive check on the prices of made-in-America manufacturing inputs. This is why Trump’s recent steel-tariff announcement gave U.S. steelmakers a “green light to lift prices,” as The Wall Street Journal put it.

Imports such as construction materials, medical goods, and computers also support many U.S. service industries. And imports are important for leisure and economic mobility. By trading for necessities instead of making them ourselves, Americans have more free time to use for fun or self-improvement (and more disposable income to pursue such things). According to a new study in the Journal of International Economics, “between 1950 and 2014, trade openness contributed to an additional 20 to 95 hours of leisure per worker per year”—invaluable time we can devote to entertainment, family, community, or education.

“Access to cheap goods” isn’t the American dream, but it sure helps us achieve it. This is particularly true for low-income workers who have tight budgets and little leisure time. Shelter, food, transport, utilities, and clothes accounted for approximately 68 percent of the poorest 20 percent of U.S. households’ annual expenditures but just about half of the richest 20 percent of households’ spending. It’s easy for someone worth, say, $521 million, like Bessent, to pay a few bucks more for everyday goods and still achieve his goals and ambitions; it’s far more difficult for a single mom with four kids to do the same.

Democrats used to be the ones offering a false choice between Americans’ access to affordable (often imported) stuff and our economic well-being. In 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama told a union-sponsored-debate audience in Chicago that “people don’t want a cheaper T‑shirt if they’re losing a job in the process.” And Bernie Sanders famously said in 2015 that Americans “don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.”

Back in those days, Republicans defended the link between trade and American prosperity. Today, only a few party outcasts, such as Mike Pence, dare to do so. Trump’s allies have made very clear that they are trying to achieve a dream. It just isn’t America’s.

Let the Girls Play

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › magazine › archive › 2025 › 04 › yankees-womens-baseball-mini-fantasy-camp › 681763

This story seems to be about:

Photographs by Zack Wittman

Everybody knows the secret of life. The secret of life is: Keep your eye on the ball.

I’m borrowing that from a 1998 song by America’s sweetheart, Faith Hill, but if you don’t know the song, you still know that simple truth. You also know that to fail is to strike out; to fail valiantly is to go down swinging; to be surprised is to be thrown a curveball; to help a buddy out is to go to bat for him; and to succeed brilliantly is to knock one out of the park. And even if you haven’t seen A League of Their Own, or have somehow missed Jennifer Garner’s Capital One ads, you’ve probably heard the maxim “There’s no crying in baseball.”

In January, I was standing in the locker room of George M. Steinbrenner Field, in Tampa, next to my teammates, whom I had met only the night before. When we heard the immortal words of Tom Hanks as Jimmy Dugan, the aggrieved manager of the Rockford Peaches women’s baseball team, piping out of a nearby speaker, we recognized them and laughed. Then we clapped (or took out our phones for photos) as Len Milcowitz, the field coordinator and unofficial emcee of the weekend, emerged wearing a full Peaches uniform to drive home the point. He’d worn it in our honor, he said. “You represent the true spirit of baseball in this country, period,” he told us.

By that he meant that we were here only for the love of the game. As women, it was true, we could have no other motive, such as being signed by a team or even reliving high-school glory days. In fact, we had paid about $2,500 for the privilege. There were 87 of us, divided into six teams. This was the first full day of the 2025 Women’s Mini-Fantasy Camp, an annual event advertised with retro panache: “Ladies, opportunity is finally knocking and your chance to experience life as a New York Yankee is here.”

Though many Major League Baseball teams host fantasy camps for men, only the Yankees and the Boston Red Sox have offered them for women. This year’s camp was more immersive than usual. On top of receiving full uniforms (to keep!) and access to ice baths and physical therapists and real Yankees catering (memorably good pot roast), we were technically playing in a major-league stadium: The Tampa Bay Rays will be using the Yankees’ spring-training facility this year for their home games because Hurricane Milton took the roof off Tropicana Field.

[Read: Climate change comes for baseball]

Over the course of two days we would play 35 innings of baseball—five games of seven innings apiece, coached by former Yankees, whom camp employees referred to by the official title of “Legends.” I had several good reasons to be nervous. A friend had encouraged me to read George Plimpton’s 1961 book, Out of My League, which is about him pitching to major-league players at an All-Star exhibition game for a story in Sports Illustrated. I did read it, and that’s how I learned that Plimpton had been “a fanatic about pitching” while in school. I, in contrast, had never played baseball at all, despite being completely obsessed with watching it (at the stadium, on TV, on my phone while at work or at weddings). And I had not trained as much as I’d meant to in the weeks leading up to the camp—I’d gone to the batting cages a few times, played catch with my dad, and done several squats, but it was winter and it got dark at 4 p.m. It had been hard to work baseball into my days.

The other problem was that I don’t like the New York Yankees. When I signed up for the camp, I hadn’t thought this would be much of an issue. But then my favorite team, the New York Mets, signed the Yankees’ superstar Juan Soto out from under them, and my situation became politically sticky. When I tested a reveal of my Mets fandom to a friendly seeming woman on the shuttle bus to the opening dinner, she shushed me sharply, and for my own good.

So I kept quiet. And in this way, it was easy to get along with my assigned teammates, and it was easy to have a good time, even though our team name was the Pinstripes, which really rubbed the Yankees of it all right in a girl’s face. Our roster ranged in age from 24 to 70, and in experience from Division I softball to, well, me. Two women who’d gone to school together in New Jersey were there celebrating their 60th birthdays—Nina Kaplan, a Boca Raton mother of four who had never played baseball before, and Elizabeth Osder, who goes by Bitsy, a Los Angeles media executive who holds a place in baseball history. On April 21, 1974, she appeared on the front page of the New York Daily News when she became one of the first girls legally permitted to join a Little League baseball team, in New Jersey.

Players stretch before a game. (Zack Wittman for The Atlantic)

Everyone was there for fun, and so was I, but I was also there because I wanted to briefly see a real-life staging of something that is still mostly a dream and that most people associate only with a 30-year-old Hollywood movie. There’s no crying in baseball, and there are no women in baseball either.

Sure, girls can play on Little League baseball teams, as Bitsy did, with boys. They can play on high-school baseball teams with boys. A scant few of them have even played on college baseball teams with boys. But they don’t get their own teams. There is no such thing as high-school or college baseball for women. There is no such thing as professional baseball for women, apart from a World Cup team that is assembled and disassembled every few years. Not only is this the baffling reality; it’s a baffling reality that hardly anybody talks about.

[From the September 2016 issue: Breaking into baseball’s ultimate boys’ club]

After the World Series ended in October, with nothing to look forward to but the long and empty months before the next baseball season, I settled in to watch Ken Burns’s 1994 documentary, Baseball, which is broken up into nine episodes. “There are only three things that America will be known for 2,000 years from now when they study this civilization,” the writer Gerald Early says in the first one. “The Constitution, jazz music, and baseball. They’re the three most beautifully designed things this culture has ever produced.” Well, women aren’t constrained in their enjoyment of jazz, or of the Constitution (for now), but …

Over the nights that I spent being thoroughly entertained by the documentary, I nevertheless felt a pit in my stomach that got deeper and deeper. Burns very explicitly articulates the sport as being foundational to our culture and reflective of our society’s ideals. The game is democratic because it’s fair, egalitarian because it’s simple, and perfectly designed because its creators—energetic, imaginative people—arrived at the measurements for the diamond as if through divine inspiration. Baseball rewards commitment and reveals character; it loves rule-benders but judges cheaters. It has lofty goals and serious expectations, but it allows for theatricality and fun. It glorifies teamwork (double plays, rallies, sacrifices, and even sign-stealing are collaborative) but also reveres the hero (when a man comes up to bat, he comes up alone). It provides a convenient excuse to eat a hot dog.

Women play basketball, which is almost as old as baseball but has never carried the same level of cultural significance, and they play soccer, which is not predominantly an American game. They play hockey and lacrosse. They don’t play the vulgar, stupid sport of football, but nobody should. Yet they play basically everything else—every sport ever invented, even the weird ones. For no obvious or practical or logical reason, they are allowed to love, but almost never to play, baseball. They don’t get to play America’s game.

Actually, contrary to some of my sweeping statements, in baseball’s earliest days, women were eager to play and sometimes allowed to do so. Several women’s colleges had baseball teams in the mid-to-late 1800s—by 1875, Vassar had a number of them, including the Sure-Pops and the Daisy-Clippers. The all-Black, all-women Dolly Vardens barnstormed in the 1880s as some of the first documented professional women baseball players; their history, largely forgotten, has been revived by the historian Leslie Heaphy, a co-editor of 2006’s Encyclopedia of Women and Baseball (which she is updating).

But doctors were convinced, or so they said, that physical activity could render women infertile or even kill them. In 1867, a nationally syndicated newspaper story blamed baseball-playing for a young woman’s death from typhoid. One of the best-known baseball players in the country at the time, John Montgomery Ward, then of the New York Giants, wrote in his 1888 book, Base-Ball: How to Become a Player, “Base-ball in its mildest form is essentially a robust game, and it would require an elastic imagination to conceive of little girls possessed of physical powers such as its play demands.” When the game became big business at the turn of the 20th century, women were welcomed at the ballpark as spectators. Their presence was thought to help civilize the environs and increase the likelihood of entire families becoming fans and spending money on the sport. But that welcome didn’t extend to the diamond.

[From the May 1928 issue: Women aren’t fans]

A few months ago, I had a long call with the historian Jennifer Ring, the author of the 2009 book Stolen Bases: Why American Girls Don’t Play Baseball. We talked about her work for a while, and then we talked about how much we love baseball. For many years, she said, she’d felt alienated from the game and angry that her daughter, who was an excellent player, had run out of options and was forced to abandon the sport. “There was probably a decade of my life where I was just too pissed off to even watch baseball,” she said. But Ring grew up a fan of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and she’d recently been roped back in by their World Series run and by the otherworldly superstar Shohei Ohtani. “I watched again this year, and it’s still the game I love,” she told me. “It’s brilliant. And the best players are just thrilling to watch.”

Of course, hardly anyone resembles Ohtani, even in Major League Baseball. Mookie Betts, another Dodger great, is nothing like him. He’s seven inches shorter and at least 30 pounds lighter, and plays multiple defensive positions with charisma and flair. Ohtani, one of the best hitters and pitchers to have ever lived, is faintly aloof and carries himself woodenly (and has a fantastic head of hair). “It’s the people’s game because it calls for a variety of different kinds of body types and skills,” Ring pointed out. There are smaller and faster men in the middle infield; bigger guys at the corners; pitchers who look like Gumby dolls and pitchers who look like they belong to the Teamsters. All of this diversity gives the lie to the suggestion that women physically cannot play.

But this is a storied idea that has been repeated across generations. In the mid-1920s, the all-female Philadelphia Bobbies were completing a barnstorming tour of Japan, where they surprised journalists, impressed fans, and received celebrity treatment. Back home, girls were being encouraged to play a version of baseball, with a larger ball and a smaller field, that would be more suitable for them—a game variously known as kitten ball, playground ball, diamond ball, and mush ball, and originally invented in the winter months to be played by men, indoors. The game is now called softball. The details were laid out by Gladys E. Palmer in Baseball for Girls and Women, published in 1929. Palmer was an early advocate for girls’ athletics, but her attitudes were still of their time. She offered advice on how to throw properly (girls “do not have a natural aptitude for throwing, which all boys have from early childhood”) and discouraged girls and women from sliding. As Palmer acknowledged, the version of the game she promoted was meant to be “less strenuous.”

Members of the Rockford Peaches, 1944. The team was part of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, created by the Chicago Cubs owner and chewing-gum mogul Philip K. Wrigley. (Bettmann / Getty)

That word, strenuous, comes up often. It was used by A. G. Spalding, an early baseball executive who also founded the country’s first sporting-goods empire, when he said that a woman was free to wave her handkerchief and root for the home team, but that “neither our wives, our sisters, our daughters, nor our sweethearts, may play Base Ball on the field … Base Ball is too strenuous for womankind.” The same word was used against the 17-year-old pitching phenom Jackie Mitchell, who was signed by the Minor League Chattanooga Lookouts (and who struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig in a 1931 exhibition game). The baseball commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, reportedly voided Mitchell’s contract, explaining that the baseball life was “too strenuous” for women.

One of my great loyalties, odd though it is for even me to contemplate, is to Brett Baty, a 25-year-old from Texas who was a first-round draft pick for the Mets in 2019 and was supposed to be their third baseman of the future. We have essentially nothing in common, obviously.

But something about his story has grabbed me. Baty hit a home run in his first major-league at-bat, in front of his family and against a hated division rival, but he’s never been able to string enough of those moments together. He has flashes of brilliance, and then he gets rattled by something. He starts making mistakes and looking bewildered. He loses his head. Then he goes down to the minors and plays with such dignity and grace. He wears the ugly promotional jerseys they make you wear at that level, and he hits some more home runs and learns a new defensive position in case that will help his chances of being called back up. Last year, his best friend, Mark Vientos, ended up taking the job that was supposed to be his and has excelled at it. In the playoffs, during which Vientos broke the Mets’ record for postseason runs batted in, the camera cut to Baty, watching from the dugout, whenever his friend did something great, and he was always, with no hesitation, ecstatic.

Then, in the offseason, another insult and injury: His jersey number, 22, just happened to be the one that the superstar Juan Soto wanted, and the Mets reportedly had promised it to him in his $765 million contract. Soto may have gone through the ceremony of offering Baty a fancy present, such as a watch or a car, in exchange for the number, as players typically do in these situations, but it wasn’t immediately clear that he had. I took exception to this even though hardly anybody else—just a few other fans on social media—seemed to care. Are we not owed dignity even when we’re kind of a flop?

That’s a long way of explaining how my career as third baseman (baseperson?) for the Pinstripes began and ended. Though I had no experience, I reasoned that I was young and fairly coordinated, and I wanted to try my hand at the hot corner.

Our first game was on one of the Yankees’ many practice fields, against another fantasy-camp team, the Bombers. When I walked out in my uniform, I felt like a ballplayer. I thought I’d watched enough of the game on television—almost every night for half of the year—to know what to do, at least basically. I quickly handled the first ball that a Bomber hit down the line to me, and I stood up with plenty of time to throw the runner out. But when I heaved the ball across the infield, it fell far short of the first baseman and way off line. The same thing happened with the next ball that came to me. And the next. My team was down by two runs at the end of the first inning.

Then came my time to bat, which was my true fear. I had to be called back and reminded to put on a batting helmet. I panicked and momentarily forgot which side of the plate I was supposed to stand on. It came to me just in time, but I struck out on three pitches. Our coaches were throwing to us, and they were not trying to strike us out. They were “trying to hit your bats,” as they put it.

The author at bat, George M. Steinbrenner Field (Zack Wittman for The Atlantic)

After this, I sat in the dugout and watched the other women watch the Yankees shortstop, Anthony Volpe, who was working out on a field behind us. (“He wasn’t very friendly,” one of them complained mildly, after admitting that she had more or less been catcalling him.) I moved to center field after a few more wild throws, and Kaley Sullivan, a 30-year-old police officer from California, took over third base. One ball slipped past her, and I scooped it up and threw it back to her; she stepped on the base and made the out. This was a highlight of my life, but in my next at-bat, I managed only two foul tips before striking out again. We lost the game 9–4 and mollified ourselves by saying we would work out the kinks in the afternoon.

At lunch, I sat next to Leslie Konsig, a 42-year-old insurance representative and plainly the best athlete on our team, who had been making plays at shortstop as reliably as I had seen the guys do it on TV. It was difficult to look anywhere other than at her on the field. She wore her dark hair in a single braid, smiled easily at everyone, and moved with the ease that comes with total competence. She treated us all like real ballplayers—meaning she was a bit more specific and direct at times than our actual coaches.

Leslie was there with her friend Lainey Archenault, 43, an animated woman with a strong Jersey accent. They are both moms, and they play together on a New Jersey softball team called the Sluggers; Lainey conspired with Leslie’s wife to sign her up for the camp as a surprise. Lainey, I learned, is a die-hard Yankees fan who has been watching almost every single game for as long as she can remember. She clocked immediately that I’d chosen the jersey number 0 in reference to the somewhat random relief pitcher Adam Ottavino, who grew up in Brooklyn near where I live and who played for the Yankees in 2019 and 2020. (More recently, he played for the Mets.) Though she has coached her son’s 10-and-under travel baseball team, this was the first time she’d played a game of baseball instead of softball. Growing up, she told me, she’d been obsessed with Don Mattingly—she was left-handed, as he is, so she’d hoped to be a first baseman, as he was. But she’s petite, so that wasn’t in the cards. Instead, she was put in the outfield, which she now prefers, because you get to watch a whole game unfold in front of you.

By contrast, Leslie didn’t care much about the Yankees. She was wearing the number 22 and had no idea that it was a sore spot for Yankees fans who were mourning Soto’s betrayal. “I’m more here to play,” she told me. “To feel, like, what it is to be on the field, wear these uniforms, use the amenities.” She’d been the only girl on her Little League team, and she’d played until high school, when she had to switch to softball. But Leslie still had a Yankees-fan story: She’d gone to the 1996 World Series with her dad and his friends, and they were so overcome by giddiness that they’d even included her, at age 14, in the celebratory cigars.

This set off some table-wide chatter about the most recent World Series, which the Yankees lost to the Dodgers in somewhat humiliating fashion, capped off by a disastrous error-riddled inning that saw a five-run lead evaporate in the decisive Game 5. “We played better than they did, today,” Bitsy Osder said.

High on camaraderie, I went into the afternoon games confident that I could improve my performance. For the second game, we were on the main field—an intimidating change of venue, as this meant music blaring over the loudspeakers while we warmed up, use of the giant scoreboard, and an announcer to read off our names as we went up to bat.

We were quickly down by three, but my teammates rallied for five runs in the fourth inning, and we ended up winning 7–3. The rally was exhilarating—I was Brett Baty in the dugout. Again, I contributed no hits. I had been dropped to the bottom of the batting order. But I pinch-ran for a teammate and accepted my status as role player. This time, at least, I hit a grounder and was thrown out, rather than just flailing at the plate.

Before our third and final game of the day, back on the practice fields, we got a pep talk. One of our coaches, or Legends, was Ray Burris, a journeyman pitcher who played with the Yankees in 1979. (At dinner, he let us each hold the American League Championship ring he’d been awarded in 2012 as a pitching coach in the Detroit Tigers organization.) He sat us down and said: “You’re as good as your last game, and you’re as bad as your first game.” We were not to get big heads.

In the third game, we scored four in the top of the first, but the other team, the Captains, scored five in the bottom. I misplayed a ball in the outfield and then stepped on it, shooting it into foul territory, where it skidded away across the dirt. I made a base-running error (as a pinch runner) and I twisted myself up underneath a fly ball and felt my back wrench as it dropped behind me.

Then Leslie hit an inside-the-park home run—assisted by two, or possibly four, defensive errors by the other team—and we went wild. But the Captains rallied again in the bottom of the sixth for another five runs and then we were down again, 10–6. My teammates worked a gritty top of the seventh, in our final chance to score. They brought in two runs, making it 10–8. I stared at the lineup card in horror as what was about to happen came together in my mind: I was going to be the last woman up. Two outs, bases loaded. If I hit the ball, we could tie the game—or even win, if there were two, or possibly four, defensive errors.

I swung at the first pitch and missed. I let the second pitch go by—ball. I swung and missed at a third pitch. I could feel humiliation a breath away. Then I nicked a foul ball. I could hardly believe the moment was still happening. Then, on the next pitch, I heard what was not quite a crack but was still the perfect sound of bat on ball. We were playing with wooden bats, not the metal ones they have at batting cages, which sound tinny and awful and jangle your hands. I ran in a dead sprint, made it to first base, and didn’t see the ball anywhere. I was safe!

But then I turned around and saw that the pitcher had fielded the ball, which had been nothing more than an infield roller, and had thrown it to the catcher for the force play at home.

I’d made the last out and the game was over.

In the early ’70s, several Major League teams hosted Hot Pants Days, which offered free admission to women who came to the stadium wearing short-shorts. Also at that time, Little League teams that allowed girls to play could be threatened with revocation of their charters.

Maria Pepe grew up in an apartment complex in Hoboken, New Jersey, that was full of children, mostly boys. Whenever she was done with her homework, she would join them in playing slap ball, stickball, Wiffle ball, and any other variation of baseball they could make work. “From a young age, maybe 7 years old, I just started playing, and I loved it,” she told me. In 1972, she tried out for Little League and made the Young Democrats team. She pitched three games before angry parents reported her team to Little League’s national office; the league threatened to take away the charter that covered all Hoboken teams, so Pepe’s coach came over to her house and took back her uniform. He let her keep her cap.

The National Organization for Women picked up her case in the spring of 1972, filing a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. This caused a big to-do, and newspapers and radio followed the case closely, though Pepe’s parents helped her tune a lot of it out. She did vaguely know that a court was hearing arguments regarding the density of her bones as compared with boys’ bones, presented by Creighton J. Hale, Little League’s executive vice president and director of research. (This argument was based on a Japanese study of cadavers and another about skiing accidents, both of which included only adult bones.) Hale also presented a hypothesis that being hit by a ball could cause breast cancer in girls. Little League’s other arguments were impressively circular. One was that there was no sense in allowing girls to play baseball, because they would not have future opportunities to play it professionally. Another was that the Little League national charter, which specified its purpose as developing “qualities of citizenship, sportsmanship, and manhood,” would be contradicted by the inclusion of girls.

Nina Kaplan, a Boca Raton mother of four who had never played baseball before, hustles to first. (Zack Wittman for The Atlantic)

Judge Sylvia Pressler found these arguments uncompelling. “Little League is as American as hot dogs and apple pie,” she wrote in her ruling. There was no good reason why “that piece of public Americana should be withheld from girls.” Little League did not acquiesce easily. The organization filed an appeal, which it lost. But by this time, Pepe was too old to play.

My teammate Bitsy said that Pepe “took the arrows” for her. Bitsy was one of the first sign-ups, and so news of her first game for the Englewood Orioles was printed in papers across the country. She struck out in her first at-bat, but then drew a walk and scored a run. She was described by the Daily News as “all mouth,” challenging the umpires and instructing her teammates on what to do. She jokes that she thinks her fly was open in one of the newspaper photos.

Now easing into retirement, Bitsy plays in two L.A. leagues just for fun. Like many young kids, she fantasized about playing for the New York Yankees. “By the grace of Maria Pepe and the New Jersey Supreme Court,” she told me, “I was able to sustain that fantasy a little longer.” She considers her Little League experience a blessing. She was accepted by her teammates and she had a blast. “I am a very positive, glass-half-full person,” she told me. “I just think my whole outlook in life would have been different if they had said no to me.”

For the past 50 years, Little League hasn’t said no to girls who love baseball, but it has set them up to be a minority. Instead of encouraging girls to play baseball after the court decision, Little League encouraged softball for girls and made that their primary option. This example was followed by high schools and colleges, which offer only softball teams for girls and young women. And even if you’re good enough to play with the boys in high school, how do you stick it out, knowing that you could get a college scholarship for softball if you switched?

“Anybody who knows the two games knows they are not equivalent,” Leslie Heaphy, the historian, told me. Softball has a bigger ball and underhand pitching, as well as a smaller diamond, a closer fence, and a different style of play that is both faster and simpler. Both are great games, but our culture has accepted a false equivalency, she argued. It’s “just a way of never having to address the issue that women want to play baseball [and] should be allowed to. It should be open to anybody.”

Jennifer Ring pointed out that the number of girls playing on boys’ high-school baseball teams hasn’t changed for decades—it hovers between 1,000 and 2,000 out of a total of nearly half a million. In recent years, Little League has held events to honor “Girls With Game,” as they call girls who play baseball or softball. But when I wrote to ask how many girls currently play baseball in Little League International, Kevin Fountain, the organization’s senior director of communications, wrote back to say that the information wasn’t available. He could only say that 32 percent of Little League participants—across baseball and softball—are female.

Thinking it might be a matter of a statistic being difficult to calculate for some reason, I wrote back and asked for a couple of alternatives. Could he tell me how many baseball teams have girls on them? Could he tell me whether any Little League baseball teams are girls-only? He could not.

In an earlier email, he’d sent me a link to an article about the Maria Pepe Little League Baseball Legacy Series, which was played for the first time in 2024, in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. I noticed that the visiting girls stayed in dorms in the Dr. Creighton J. Hale International Grove—a complex named for the man who’d once argued that they would ruin the sport if they ever picked up a bat. He eventually regretted this position, and when he met Pepe later in life, he told her that his granddaughter had begun playing ball.

Throughout the weekend, I had several conversations with women about a new Women’s Pro Baseball League, which was announced in October and is set to debut in 2026. “If it’s within driving distance, I’m going to every game,” Vicky Leone, a retired 58-year-old mother of two, told me.

Vicky was a regular at the camp—one of its pillars. Her team, the Bombers, which went undefeated over the weekend, was largely made up of women who had been playing together for years. When I ran into her at dinner one night, she was wearing a onesie covered in the face of her team’s coach, the former Yankees second baseman Homer Bush. She told me that in 2017, during her third year at the camp, she’d asked one of the Legends, Orlando Hernández, a former Yankees pitcher otherwise known as El Duque, to throw her a real fastball. She has no idea how fast he threw it, but she somehow made contact, and hit it out of George M. Steinbrenner Field.

“I guess I timed it just right,” Vicky told me. “I didn’t even realize it went over the fence.” A player on the opposing team had to yell at her to stop sprinting as she rounded second, and when she got back to the dugout, her own teammates were losing their minds. A camp employee went and found the ball, and Hernández signed it for her. She still doesn’t know how it happened—“the baseball gods” intervened.

Vicky plays in three different softball leagues all year round, but playing baseball at camp for one weekend a year is important to her. “We’re like a sisterhood,” she said. Her teammates, many of whom are roughly her age, are all part of a generation of women who were snubbed by baseball. She grew up wanting to play and would often be dismissed with an Isn’t that cute? When she got older, she would talk about baseball, and boys would ignore her. When she started coaching baseball, parents didn’t want their sons to be assigned to her team.

The author loosens up before a game. (Zack Wittman for The Atlantic)

Now she sees girls playing in the Little League World Series and has heard about the professional women’s league starting next year. “Sometimes I feel—I wish I was born now and not then, just so I could be a part of that.” But she has more enthusiasm than regret. “I would love to be a coach there, even an assistant coach, keeping book, whatever; I would love to do that,” she told me. “Am I going to? Probably not. But, you know, it’s a dream, and everybody’s got a dream.”

The idea for the Women’s Pro Baseball League was announced with a bare-bones press release. It revealed that the league would start next year with six teams “predominantly in the Northeast,” and that it had been co-founded by a lawyer, Keith Stein, alongside Justine Siegal, a well-known figure in the world of women’s baseball. Siegal grew up playing and then became a coach. She’s best known as the first woman to have pitched a major-league batting practice and for creating the nonprofit Baseball for All, which promotes girls’ participation in the sport.

[Jemele Hill: Women’s college basketball is a worthy investment]

“My whole life has been about getting girls involved in baseball,” Siegal told me when we spoke in December. She is a co-owner of the new league, in charge of baseball operations, and will likely be its first commissioner. She rattled off part of her to-do list: The WPBL will need scouts, tryouts, contracts, stadiums. It will need to create a culture of girls’ baseball from scratch. And so, most important, it will need time and serious backing. Even with the patronage of the NBA, it took decades for the WNBA to reach the levels of interest it has today. The Professional Women’s Hockey League, which also started with six teams just last year, is wholly owned by the chairman of the Dodgers and his wife; they can afford to wait while it finds its footing. A new baseball league will similarly need team owners who are able to front huge costs and are willing to commit to something that might not be profitable for the foreseeable future.

Siegal described her vision for the league by comparing it to Angel City FC, the women’s soccer team in Los Angeles. The fan base isn’t enormous, but it’s big enough. “The place is packed; it’s electric. And the athletes are being treated well, making money. They don’t need a second job. And girls know that it’s possible that they, too, could become a professional player.”

The only real precedent for a women’s baseball league is the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, the subject of A League of Their Own. The league was created by the Chicago Cubs owner and chewing-gum mogul Philip K. Wrigley in 1943 to keep baseball alive as an entertainment industry while many of its brightest stars went to fight in World War II. He was initially the sole owner of the entire league, which was based in the Midwest and rostered only white women.

The Racine Belles and South Bend Blue Sox, both of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, face off in 1947. (Bettmann / Getty)

The league gave hundreds of women the opportunity to play baseball, and it put on some great games that impressed even seasoned baseball professionals and sportswriters. But there was always a tension, as depicted in the movie, between the gimmick and the game. The league had strict rules about feminine appearance and behavior—players wore skirts, went to charm school, and were taught to scratch at bars of soap to remove the dirt under their fingernails. The league was disbanded in 1954, and the idea was largely forgotten until the release of A League of Their Own.

The movie inspired a very brief period of trial and error. A women’s league based on the West Coast played a season and a half before its owner pulled the plug over low attendance, and the Coors Brewing Company sponsored the Colorado Silver Bullets, a barnstorming team managed by the beloved knuckleball pitcher Phil Niekro. “Give them the time all the men have had in this country to play, and you’re going to find a lot of good baseball players,” Niekro told The New York Times after the team’s first year (they went 6–38). The Bullets put on some great games and improved to a winning record in their fourth year. But marketing stunts are not meant for longevity and the Bullets, too, did not last.

The U.S. does have a national women’s baseball team, which was featured in the 2024 documentary See Her Be Her. That team competes every two to three years in a Women’s Baseball World Cup, which the U.S. last won in 2006; Japan, which dominates in women’s baseball, has been the champion in the past seven contests. Americans are far behind.

See Her Be Her, which aired on the MLB Network the week of the World Series, demonstrated the support that women’s baseball has been able to garner among former major-league stars, including Ichiro Suzuki and Cal Ripken Jr. Ripken, whose 21-year playing career with the Baltimore Orioles ended in 2001, is a member of one of the most famous baseball families in American history. During his own Hall of Fame career, he played alongside his brother Billy and was managed by his father, Cal Ripken Sr. His sister, Ellie, never got to play, though he describes her as throwing harder than he did as a child and growing into a massively talented athlete in other sports.

Ripken told me that he and his teammates had watched the Silver Bullets play exhibition games. “I always looked out there and saw my sister and thought, Wouldn’t my sister love to do this? ” I didn’t sense that he was putting on a show—more like it was flatly obvious to someone whose whole life is baseball that everyone should get a chance to enjoy playing it. “I wouldn’t say we were surprised, but our eyes would open, saying, ‘Man, these girls are really good,’ ” he said. “To try to figure out why that didn’t blossom at that time—sometimes they say good ideas, it’s a matter of timing. Maybe this is the right timing now.”

On Saturday morning at baseball camp, my beautiful Pinstripes took the lead quickly in our first game, which we won 6–2; again, I did not contribute a single hit.

My worst fear was realized as my teammates began to notice—or, probably, they had already noticed, and it just became impossible for them to credibly ignore—that I was by far the worst baseball player on our team. This inspired them to acts of kindness, such as high fives when I had done nothing to earn them and vociferous cheering whenever I was at the plate.

In the buffet line at lunch, Ray, our coach, tried to get at the root of my problem, which he diagnosed as mental. I told him about Brett Baty and his many struggles, and though he clearly had no idea who I was talking about or why I was so fixated on him, he seemed to agree that Baty and I had a similar problem, and it was in our brains. “What are you thinking when you’re up there?” he asked me. “I’m thinking, I hope I don’t miss the ball, ” I told him in the spirit of honesty, even though I was already 100 percent sure that this was not the correct thing to be thinking. Ray kindly told me that this was not the correct thing to be thinking.

I never wanted to be a baseball player and my performance at baseball camp doesn’t matter. These games, however, were meaningful to women who, by playing them, were making peace with their childhood fantasies after many, many years. One such person was my teammate Susie McNamara, who at 53 years old was attending her third camp. One evening, she told me that she was doing so this time to mark the end of chemo treatments, which she’d finished two months prior. But the first time she came, in 2011, she’d wanted to prove something.

Susie grew up in a baseball family. Her grandfather played for the Yankees’ farm team the Newark Bears. Her father was a police officer but also owned a baseball-card shop in Lambertville, New Jersey. He convinced everyone that it would be safe for her to start playing T-ball when she was 4 years old, and, later, that she could play Little League baseball with the boys. She was teased in school, she remembered, for wearing a baseball cap all the time (“It wasn’t, like, a fashion statement,” the way it is now) and for dreaming of being a Yankee.

She had to give that up when she was 12, and her primary option was softball. She would go on to play for Mount St. Mary’s, a Division I school in Maryland, but the coaching was terrible and the experience was miserable. Her sophomore year, the team’s record was one win, 31 losses. “I bet that one felt really good, though,” I suggested, but I was wrong. “That one broke my heart,” she said.

When she showed up at camp the first time, she thought of it as her opportunity to demonstrate what she could do. The Legends that year included one of her heroes, Bucky Dent, who stopped and stared theatrically when she made an impressive play at third base. She also remembers Darryl Strawberry standing over her after she made a diving backhanded catch in foul territory and screaming, “That was outstanding!” She thought that weekend was probably the best she’d ever played in her life.

In our final game, against the Bambinos, the Pinstripes were on fire. The other women had perfected the team’s defense over the course of the weekend—it didn’t hurt that I didn’t touch the ball once—and the only thing left for us to accomplish was a hit from me. I was not the only one who felt this way. Others said it, including Leslie, who told me, “I’m committed to you getting a hit.” (And Lainey, who said, “Let’s go, Ottavino!”)

In my first at-bat, I swung on the first pitch and something happened. The ball dribbled up the first-base line and the first baseman scooped it up easily, tagging me as I passed. But a run scored! No hits, but one RBI!

The Pinstripes celebrate a victory in their last game of the weekend. (Zack Wittman for The Atlantic)

After taking the lead in that inning, we were winning for the entire game, so the pressure on me—from that angle—was quite low. In my second at-bat, my team cheered wildly for me on every pitch. I hit the ball just foul down the first-base line, felt a momentary jolt of hope because of the hard contact, and then struck out. In my third and final at-bat, my team cheered wildly for me again, and I struck out again. “Next year!” I announced, in a voice that was supposed to be playful and make everybody feel less awkward, but actually sounded childish and a bit unhinged.

It was ridiculous how upset I was. I was shocked at myself. I hadn’t been expecting it, but the admonition of “no crying in baseball” became suddenly relevant—I had to duck into the tunnel for a few seconds to regain my composure. My teammates, who were geniuses, politely ignored me for five minutes. And then our careers as New York Yankees were over. We had won our final game and went home with a record of three wins and two losses, which you might notice is a .600 winning percentage, higher than that of the actual Yankees last year. We drank Miller Lite in the locker room and swapped phone numbers.

I texted my college roommate from Staten Island that I would mail her all the Yankees merchandise that had been included in the price of admission. I texted my boyfriend that I had a new appreciation for the game and was humbled. I texted my dad, “One RBI!” There’s no crying in baseball, and the other thing they’re always saying is that baseball is a game of failure. If you have a really good batting average, you’re failing about 70 percent of the time. Most women, like most men who try the game of baseball, aren’t up to it. They crumble, like me, and like Brett Baty has in the past, though I am confident he will not do so this year.

At the start of her book, Jennifer Ring mentions the Burns baseball documentary, noting that it is more than 18 hours long but spends just a few minutes on women playing baseball in the 1800s, and then another few on the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League in the 1940s and ’50s.

This is particularly strange because the episode about the ’60s and ’70s touches on other issues of the day—Vietnam, civil rights, social unrest—but makes no mention of NOW’s involvement in the Little League legal battle, which would seem to fit in fairly naturally. Baseball  is the definitive story of the game in this country, which is why Ring brings it up. “He’s including it in his history, but he’s giving it the position that he thinks it deserves.”

Baseball is for the fastidious—a game in which everything matters. Reflecting in 1981 on the past 50 years of his life as a fan, Roger Angell wrote: “All of us who have followed the game with intensity have found ourselves transformed into walking memory banks, humming with games won, games lost, batting averages and earned-run averages, games started and games saved, ‘magic numbers,’ final standings, lifetime marks, Series, seasons, decades, epochs.”

Every play is recorded. Every pitch is remembered. It all counts. Every mistake. Every miracle. You can hear the delight and shock in an announcer’s voice when they see something that has somehow never happened before in the history of millions of plays. If you watch enough baseball, you can just feel when something is really something. (Baty’s three-run homer at Tropicana Field, which disappeared into the late, great ceiling and never came down?) In a game in which everything matters, in which we who love it wish to see every possible outcome unfold, how can we stomach the absence of women’s baseball?

This article appears in the April 2025 print edition with the headline “The Girls of Summer.”  When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.