Hello, and welcome to News for Normies!

This is a series that originated on Substack, the serious part of that otherwise-lighthearted space.

News for Normies comes every Monday and is a post on three important news stories, served up with context, insight and some things to follow in the coming week.

Who are you? A normal person who has a whole life to live, and not a lot of time to read or watch news.

What is this? Your go-to blog post that highlights a few big stories to keep you a little more informed in an ever-saturated news world.

So if you want to know what’s happening in the world but don’t have the time to monitor the headlines, you’re in the right place.

Let’s get your week started with some simple, thoughtful, and unbiased info. Please share with a fellow news-loving friend!

Today, an update on the Iranian protests; the Supreme Court hears arguments about if trans women and girls belong on female sports teams; and two big ICE updates.

Story 1: Who Will Help? Iranian Protests Continue to Fight for Freedom but Regime Cracks Down Further

Reports say Iranian protests are losing steam as Iranian security forces continue to brutally crack down on citizens.

Already thousands of Iranians are dead and thousands more are injured, as civilians continue to take to the streets in nationwide protests against the brutal theocratic reign of the Islamic Republic.

Exact numbers of victims brutally killed by the regime are hard to determine, as leaders have cut internet to their citizens in an effort to control the narrative and hide their brutal tactics, but one report says over 16,000 people have already been killed.

Context and Background

This current wave of Iranian protests sparked on December 28, 2025, and originally officially centered around Iran’s tanking economy and collapsing currency. Ire quickly spread to the top, though, with Iranian citizens placing the blame for not only the failing economy but also the attack on citizens’ rights squarely on the shoulders of the Islamic Regime and Iran’s Supreme Leader.

The regime’s response has been, in a word, brutal. Multiple reports of people being shot at point blank range have emerged; injured people are piling into hospitals seeking medical treatment; and bodies are reportedly piling up in cemeteries.

Will Trump Step In?

While President Trump said early last week that “help is on its way” and his press secretary even said outright the U.S. is “unafraid to use military force on Iran,” the U.S. has made no military moves. Multiple reports say that several military options have been presented to Trump.

So, what are Iranians saying about the U.S. potentially getting involved? Some reports say both Iranians in the country as well as in the diaspora would welcome U.S. military intervention, as it’s likely the only way to finally oust the regime. 

Remember: There’s no way to accurately poll Iranians living in the country as Iran is an authoritarian state with an extensive surveillance apparatus that is known to quash dissent among its people.

What to Follow

• Possible U.S. military involvement: Will Trump go from rhetoric to action? Also keep an eye out for the repositioning of military assets, which could indicate potential U.S. involvement.
• Updated numbers on deaths and injuries: The number of deaths reported has ranged from just over 3,000 to up to 16,000; but no matter the exact number there’s no doubt the regime is brutalizing its people for protesting against it. I’ve been personally keeping an eye on this Instagram account for updates.
• How long will the blackout last? The regime has blocked internet access for its people, which serves the purpose of both preventing them from communicating to mobilize together, and preventing the world at large from realizing the scale of the atrocities they’re committing. Look to see how Starlink and other services can help (not everyone has the equipment to receive a satellite signal), and how long the regime keeps its people in the literal, and figurative, dark.

Story 2: Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trans Participation in Sports

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments that challenge two current state laws in Idaho and West Virginia. 

Those laws restrict the rosters of girls’ sports teams to only girls who are biologically female, or in advocate-speak you may have heard before, people “assigned female at birth.”

The oral arguments wrapped up last week, but the conversations about what this ruling could mean will continue until the Supreme Court rules, so let’s dig into what’s at stake.

Context and Background

Two challengers brought this case to the nation’s highest court—Lindsay Hecox, a former college student from Idaho, and Becky Pepper-Jackson (“BPJ”), a teenager from West Virginia.

Currently, in those states as well as multiple others, trans girls can not participate in designated girls’ sports teams.

Hecox filed a lawsuit against Idaho when seeking to try out for the Boise State University track and cross country teams. 15-year-old “BPJ” has been staving off male puberty with hormone therapy and who has identified as female since third grade. Read more on both athletes here.

What’s At the Heart of This?

Central to these hearings is the question of, do these bans amount to unconstitutional sex discrimination?

Those who believe trans women are women say yes; those who believe trans women are trans women (and not biological women) say no.

Expect to hear lawyers for the trans athletes say that their clients (and other trans athletes nationwide) are being treated unconstitutionally by being excluded. 

Expect to hear lawyers supporting the bans say that separating sports by biological sex is not discriminatory, but rather a permissible way to maintain fairness and competition in sports.

It Won’t Be an Easy Ruling

The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether these states’ laws banning trans girls from girls’ and women’s sports teams are constitutional. As we just mentioned, these laws currently exist in about half the states in the U.S.

Add to that, the issue is complicated as both sides are using Title IX as a hook in their argument, and the Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on Title IX, as it relates to defining “sex.” (A clip circulating this weekend shows an OB/GYN refusing to answer if men can get pregnant at a Congressional hearing.)

Title IX is a law that says schools cannot discriminate based on sex; it’s widely considered a landmark ruling that elevated girls’ and women’s sports, forcing schools to allocate resources and effort comparable to boys’ sports.

Here’s how you might see Title IX arguments used to support each side:

• Those in support of a potential ban say that allowing trans girls (biological boys) to participate in girls’ sports violates the principles of this law, which call for equal rights and resources (in this case, in sports) for female athletes.
• Those against a potential ban say that not allowing trans girls into girls’ sports violates trans girls’ rights.

Why Should You Care?

The Supreme Court’s decision could set a nationwide precedent on how Title IX applies to transgender athletes.

The ruling won’t just impact what happens in the states named in the case, but could also influence how other states interpret and enforce Title IX.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court justices will now discuss draft their opinions based on what they heard in oral arguments. They will not hear any further arguments, but can request more information or briefs.

Justices will then vote internally and draft and circulate both the majority, and dissenting, opinion. They’ll then likely issue their formal ruling before their summer break, which would be late June or early July.

What to Follow

• How narrow will the Court’s ruling be? Will the ruling address Idaho and West Virginia specifically, or issue a broader ruling that impacts other states?
• Continued state vs. federal law battles: No matter what the Supreme Court rules, state challenges to the new law could continue, though they’d be limited in scope of impact.
• How will athletic bodies respond? The NCAA already changed its rules to say that only “athletes assigned female at birth” could participate on women’s sports teams. If the Supreme Court ruling leaves room for any gray areas, they may have to reevaluate their position.
• Will the Supreme Court leave room for exemptions? If the court does not issue a broad ruling, it could leave room for case-by-case exemptions, including for trans female students who could “prove” they don’t retain a competitive advantage.

Head to Substack for my breakdown of this week’s third story: two big updates from the Minnesota ICE protests.

See you next week!