News
In 2016, NPR talked to 2 young Hillary fans. How do they feel after this election?
Jules Randell, 15, and little sister Bee, 12, talk with NPR correspondent Tovia Smith at their home in a Boston suburb days after Vice President Harris lost her bid to become the first female U.S. president.
Image by/Sarah Wall-Randell
hide caption
toggle caption
Image by/Sarah Wall-Randell
They showed up primed for victory, and dressed to party.
Jules Randell was 7 years old when Wellesley College grads, including Jules’ mom, gathered for what they believed would be a celebration of fellow alumna Hillary Clinton becoming the first female U.S. president on Election Night in 2016.

Jules picked out a flowy blue skirt, after learning that was the Democratic Party’s color, and topped it with a tiny T-shirt stamped with a big statement:
“Future president,” it read.
But that was the long game. Jules was definitely not aspiring to be the first to shatter that ultimate glass ceiling — that person “of course” was going to be Clinton, in just a matter of hours.
“I want to be the second,” Jules explained excitedly when questioned by this NPR reporter who was covering the event that night.
Smith first interviewed Jules and Bee, then 7 and 4, at a Wellesley College watch party for almuna Hillary Clinton on Election Night 2016.
Image by/Sarah Wall-Randell
hide caption
toggle caption
Image by/Sarah Wall-Randell
That election obviously didn’t go as Jules expected. And after former President Donald Trump again defeated a female Democratic nominee for president last week, we wondered about those youngest fans of Clinton and Vice President Harris and how they, in particular, were processing it all.
Both Jules and little sister Bee, who was 4 at the time, still have vivid memories of the hyped-up vibe at the Wellesley party, including cupcakes topped with sugar-based “shards of glass” and toy wooden hammers to mark the expected shattering of the nation’s highest glass ceiling.
“I remember the banners and the balloons and everything,” Bee says. They both only saw the festivities; their bedtime rolled around and they went home long before all the excitement and cheers devolved into despair and tears.
But both also remember the morning after when their mom broke the news to them. “It was definitely a disappointment,” says Jules, who’s now 15. Bee, now 12, says she remembers continuing to think about it — especially every time she sat down to eat on that laminated placemat her mom always used to put on the table, with little portraits of all the former presidents.
It was past Jules’ and Bee’s bedtime when news of Clinton’s loss broke, so they learned about it from their mom the next day.
Image by/Pamela Baldwin
hide caption
toggle caption
Image by/Pamela Baldwin
“I just thought it was crazy that, like, all of these years, there’s never been a woman president,” she says.
It brought them some solace in 2020 to see Harris elected the first female U.S. vice president.
“Yeah, I remember thinking ‘Oh wow, this is so epic,’ ” says Jules.
But this year, Harris’ loss to Trump hit hard. It felt personal and more high-stakes.
Jules now identifies as nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns. When Trump talks about Americans being better off under a Trump administration, Jules doesn’t believe that applies to everyone.
“It’s a matter of safety for millions of people — immigrants and people of color and LGBTQ people and women,” says Jules. “They are all people genuinely in danger if they live in a state where they are not protected by the state, and that’s scary.”
At the same time, Jules takes a more sanguine view of the long-term.
Bee, pictured when she was younger, wears a T-shirt covered in cartoon female heroes like Wonder Woman that she says now feels outdated. “I don’t think it has to be just brave women who are actively doing something for the country,” she says. “It can be anyone.”
Image by/Sarah Wall-Randell
hide caption
toggle caption
Image by/Sarah Wall-Randell
That’s partly because Trump can serve only for four years, Jules says, and also because their generation will be old enough to vote by the next election — and they’re definitely paying attention.
“I thought it was really cool when I went to school and literally in all my classes people were discussing the election. Kids really care, and that gives me hope.”
Jules also sees it as a sign of progress that their generation seems somewhat less hung up on seeing a woman in the oval office than their moms were.
It actually made Jules and Bee giggle to think back to another old T-shirt of theirs that their mom once considered so progressive and feminist.
The shirt read “The patriarchy isn’t going to smash itself” and pictured a cartoon lineup of exclusively female heroes, including fictional ones like Wonder Woman and Hermione Granger, from the Harry Potter series.
That, to Jules and Bee, feels like a fusty old form of feminism compared with the kind of gender equity that their generation is fighting for, one they say advocates for a broader and more inclusive definition of feminism along with an emphasis on intersectionality.
“I don’t think it has to be just brave women who are actively doing something for the country. It can be anyone,” says Bee.
“Right, absolutely,” Jules nods. “Men can be feminists. They just have to believe that women have a choice to be who they want to be.”
Electing a female president would be a big symbolic victory, they say. But what matters most is policy change — and whether whoever is in the Oval Office is with them on their issues.
News
Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP
The Supreme Court
Win McNamee/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Win McNamee/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits.
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.”
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced.
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor said that if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.”
Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow. Earlier last month the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map. California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district. Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
News
Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.
News
US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets
The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.
“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.
“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.
In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.
“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.
Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.
This story has been updated.
-
World5 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts5 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO5 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
News1 week agoWorld reacts as US top court limits Trump’s tariff powers