According to research by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, transgender people in the United States were over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime based on statistics from 2017-2018. A study by the non-profit Everytown for Gun Safety found the number of trans people murdered in the U.S. nearly doubled between 2017and 2021.In the last 5–9 years, those figures have only increased as the Republican Party has made trans people the target of many of their political campaigns and legislative actions.Because of the violence trans people face globally, the Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR) is observed annually on November 20 to honor transgender and gender-nonconforming people murdered for simply existing. Founded in 1999 by activist Gwendolyn Ann Smith, it began as a vigil for Rita Hester, a Black transgender woman murdered in 1998 in Allston, Massachusetts.The first local vigil turned into an international day of action observed in dozens of countries and hundreds of cities worldwide.Realizing a contributing factor to violence is ignorance, the International Transgender Day of Visibility (TDOV) was begun in 2009 by Michigan-based transgender activist Rachel Crandall-Crocker. The March 31 event is to celebrate living transgender people, providing a positive alternative to TDOR, and to combat stereotypes and increase global visibility.In recognition of the day, the Democratic Party's official social media accounts shared a message.The DNC wrote:"Trans rights are human rights.""This Transgender Day of Visibility, we honor the resilience of transgender and nonbinary Americans and celebrate their incredible courage."Trans rights are human rights.This Transgender Day of Visibility, we honor the resilience of transgender and nonbinary Americans and celebrate their incredible courage.[image or embed]— Democrats (@democrats.org) March 31, 2026 at 8:38 AMOn vocal transphobe Elon Musk’s social media platform X, the National Republican Senatorial Committee decided to repost the DNC's TDOV message.They very cleverly captioned their X repost:"No" The post was heavily ratioed, with people calling out the GOP and their priorities in the comments. reply to @NRSC/X reply to @NRSC/X reply to @NRSC/X reply to @NRSC/X While the GOP organization kept their transphobic message to X where they mistakenly believed their bigotry would be supported, screenshots of their ignorance were shared on other platforms. @robtomshany/Bluesky @velodus/Bluesky @jgibsondem/Threads @the geekprofessor/Bluesky @doctorstardis/Bluesky @juniper.beer/BlueskyWhy is Transgender Day of Visibility important? View on ThreadsTransgender people are a very small portion of the population, but they receive outsized government scrutiny, demonization, hatred, and violence. View on ThreadsSome of that could be countered with education and visibility as many people have never had a personal interaction with a trans person.Despite no record of attacks on women and girls by trans people in bathrooms, the GOP still focuses on bathroom bans that target trans women and ignore trans men. View on ThreadsDespite only a handful of trans people participating in organized sports, the GOP has spent years and millions of dollars pushing bans on trans women and girls participating in sports from the peewee level to the Olympics. View on ThreadsThe NCAA was pushed in 2024 to reverse their policy on trans athletes even though there were less than 10 trans student athletes out of 510,000—which included those who identified as nonbinary and as men—participating in college sports. View on ThreadsAnd none of the trans women were "dominating" or winning all their competitions like Republican rhetoric claims they would. View on ThreadsCongressional hearings, which range from $20,000 to over $50,000 per day in operational costs, were held in 2024 to address what to do about less than 0.002% of NCAA athletes. Despite years of transphobes trying to find proof for their cause, a trans athlete's only harm they could find was causing a fifth place swimmer to get her trophy in the mail.If more people were aware that Republican bathroom bans and sports bans are wasteful spending of money and effort to address issues that never existed, maybe they could vote for productive representation. View on ThreadsOr at least pressure their GOP government officials to focus on something that does more than target and victimize an already vulnerable population.Imagine what could be accomplished.

Evidence suggests that sexual function may remain stable or improve after menopause, challenging assumptions of decline. Medscape News Global

Plumes of smoke and fire rise after debris from an intercepted Iranian drone struck an oil facility, according to authorities, in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, on March 14, 2026. AP Photo/Altaf QadriWars are rarely lost first on the battlefield. They are lost in leaders’ minds − when leaders misread what they and their adversaries can do, when their confidence substitutes for comprehension, and when the last war is mistaken for the next one. The Trump administration’s miscalculation of Iran is not an anomaly. It is the latest entry in one of the oldest and most lethal traditions in international politics: the catastrophic gap between what leaders believe going in and what war actually delivers. I’m a scholar of international security, civil wars and U.S. foreign policy, and author of the book “Dying by the Sword,” which examines why the United States repeatedly reaches for military solutions and why such interventions rarely produce durable peace. The deeper problem with the U.S. war in Iran, as I see it, was overconfidence bred by recent success. Dismissed concerns Before the conflict involving Iran, Israel and the U.S. escalated, Energy Secretary Chris Wright dismissed concerns about oil market disruption, noting that prices had barely moved during the 12-day war in June 2025 between Israel and Iran. Other senior officials agreed. What followed was significant: Iranian-aimed missile and drone barrages against U.S. bases, Arab capitals and Israeli population centers. Then Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply passes daily − not with a naval blockade, not with mines or massed anti-ship missiles, but with cheap drones. A few strikes in the vicinity of the strait were enough. Insurers and shipping companies decided the transit was unsafe. Tanker traffic dropped to zero, although the occasional ship has made it through recently. Analysts are calling it the biggest energy crisis since the 1970s oil embargo. President Donald Trump expressed anger on March 17, 2026, at allies who did not agree to help the U.S. force the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to tanker traffic. Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has since vowed to keep the strait closed. U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, reported after a closed-door briefing that the administration had no plan for the strait and did not know how to get it safely back open. With no embassy in Tehran since 1979, the U.S. relies heavily for intelligence on CIA networks of questionable quality and Israeli assets who have their own country’s interests in mind. So the U.S. did not anticipate that Iran had rebuilt and dispersed significant military capacity since June 2025, nor that it would strike neighbors across the region, including Azerbaijan, widening the conflict well beyond the Persian Gulf. The war has since reached the Indian Ocean, where a U.S. submarine sank an Iranian frigate 2,000 miles from the theater of war, off the coast of Sri Lanka – just days after the ship had participated in Indian navy exercises alongside 74 nations, including the U.S. The diplomatic damage to Washington’s relationships with India and Sri Lanka, two countries whose cooperation is increasingly important as the United States seeks partners to manage and mitigate Iran’s blockade, was entirely foreseeable. Washington has put them in a difficult position, with India choosing diplomacy with Iran to secure passage for its vessels and Sri Lanka opting to retain its neutrality, underscoring its vulnerable position. But U.S. planners didn’t foresee any of this. The wrong lesson from Venezuela The swift military intervention by the U.S. in Venezuela in January 2026 produced rapid results with minimal blowback − appearing to validate the administration’s faith in coercive action. But clean victories are dangerous teachers. They inflate what I call in my teaching the “hubris/humility index” − the more a leadership overestimates its own abilities, underestimates the adversary’s and dismisses uncertainty, the higher the score and the more likely disaster will ensue. Clean victories inflate the index precisely when skepticism is most needed, because they suggest the next adversary will be as manageable as the last. Political scientist Robert Jervis demonstrated decades ago that misperceptions in international relations are not random but follow patterns. Leaders tend to project their own cost-benefit logic onto opponents who do not share it. They also fall into “availability bias,” allowing the most recent operation to stand in for the next. The higher the hubris/humility index, the less likely there is to be the kind of strategic empathy that might ask: How does Tehran see this? What does a regime that believes its survival is at stake actually do? History shows that such a regime escalates, improvises and takes risks that appear irrational from an outside perspective but are entirely rational from within. Recent cases reveal this unmistakable pattern. The United States in Vietnam, 1965–1968 American war planners believed material superiority would force the communists in Hanoi to surrender. It didn’t. American firepower alone didn’t lead to military defeat, much less political control. The Tet Offensive in 1968 – when North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces launched coordinated attacks across South Vietnam – shattered the official U.S. narrative that the war was nearly won and that there was “light at the end of the tunnel.” Athough the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces ultimately repelled the attacks, their scale and surprise caused the public not to trust official statements, accelerating the erosion of public trust and decisively turning American opinion against the war. The U.S. loss in Vietnam didn’t occur on a single battlefield, but through strategic and political unraveling. Despite overwhelming superiority, Washington was incapable of building a stable, legitimate South Vietnamese government or recognizing the grit and resilience of the North Vietnamese forces. Eventually, with mounting casualties and large-scale protests at home, U.S. forces withdrew, ceding control of Saigon to North Vietnamese forces in 1975. In this April 29, 1975, file photo, a helicopter lifts off from the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, South Vietnam, during a last-minute evacuation of authorized personnel and civilians. AP Photo. The U.S. failure was conceptual and cultural, not informational. American analysts simply couldn’t picture the war from their opponent’s perspective. Afghanistan: Deadly assumptions The Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1979 and the United States in Afghanistan after 2001 conducted two different wars but held the same deadly assumption: that external military force can quickly impose political order in a fractured society strongly resistant to foreign control. In both cases, great powers believed their abilities would outweigh local complexities. In both cases, the war evolved faster − and lasted far longer − than their strategies could adapt. Russia, Ukraine and the Strait of Hormuz This is the case that should most haunt Washington. Ukraine demonstrated that a materially weaker defender can impose huge costs on a stronger attacker through battlefield innovation: cheap drones, decentralized adaptation, real-time intelligence, and the creative use of terrain and chokepoints to find asymmetrical advantages. The U.S. watched it all unfold in real time for four years and helped pay for it. Iran was also watching − and the Strait of Hormuz is the proof. Iran didn’t need a navy to close the world’s most important energy chokepoint. It needed drones, the same cheap, asymmetric technology Ukraine has used to blunt Russia’s onslaught, deployed not on a land front but against the insurance calculus of the global shipping industry. Washington, which had underwritten much of that playbook in Ukraine, apparently never asked the obvious question: What happens when the other side has been taking notes? That is not a failure of U.S. intelligence. It is a failure of strategic imagination − exactly what the hubris/humility index is designed to highlight. Iran does not need to defeat the U.S. conventionally. It needs only to raise costs, exploit chokepoints and wait for a fracture among U.S. allies and domestic political opposition to force a fake U.S. declaration of victory or a genuine U.S. withdrawal. Notably, Iran has kept the strait selectively open to Turkish, Indian and Saudi vessels, rewarding neutral countries and punishing U.S. allies, driving wedges through the coalition. Historian Geoffrey Blainey famously argued that wars start when both sides hold incompatible beliefs about power and only end when reality forces those beliefs to align. That alignment is now happening, at great cost, in the Persian Gulf and beyond. The Trump administration scored high on the hubris index at exactly the moment when it most needed humility. Monica Duffy Toft does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Drs Ursula Matulonis and Brian Slomovitz discuss phase 3 trials of ADCs in endometrial cancer and what's to come in the field of endometrial cancer therapeutics. Medscape

Nine in 10 senior insurance professionals expect end-to-end claims administration to be managed by artificial intelligence within 24 months, according to data from embedded insurance provider EIP.

Interviews: UG Exclusive: "In the neighborhood that I'd grown up in, there was a little music store where the guy was German, and he had Framus guitars in the shop."

A historically neglected disease, bronchiectasis now represents an exemplar of progress through modern translational medicine.1,2 2025 saw the first approved therapy for bronchiectasis by regulators in the USA and Europe,3 new evidence-based guidelines,4 a record number of publications,1 the initiation of several new large clinical trials, and its highest ever profile within the respiratory community.5 Against this backdrop, it might seem counterintuitive to propose the biggest ever “shake-up” of the field through a Lancet Respiratory Medicine Commission.

Gear: The little guitars that could, these fine old-school-style instruments are seeing a noticeable rise in popularity.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) today published its final draft amending Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) on own funds and eligible liabilities shortening the timeframe for competent and resolution authorities to process institution’s applications to reduce own funds and eligible liabilities instruments from four to three months. The EBA concluded that authorities now have sufficient experience with these procedures to carry out the assessments more efficiently.

From capital scarcity to clinical impact, execution and partnerships are redefining the industry’s next chapter. In early 2026, a handful of biotech financings

Cesar Chavez became a national hero for his advocacy of farmworkers' rights. Here he gives a talk at Boston University in April 1979. Ted Dully/The Boston Globe via Getty ImagesMultiple women told The New York Times that Mexican American civil rights hero Cesar Chavez assaulted them decades ago, including when some were just girls, one as young as 13. Over their multiyear investigation, published on March 18, 2026, journalists at the paper found “extensive evidence” of that abuse by poring over historical records and conducting interviews with more than 60 people. While yearslong investigations into abuse allegations are rare, silence about abuse is common. As a clinical psychologist who studies interpersonal trauma, I’ve seen how the dynamics of abuse can lead to silence, even over decades. This research can help answer the question many asked when they heard about the charges against Chavez: Why didn’t the women speak earlier? Power and trust betrayed Among the women who disclosed abuse by Chavez, Dolores Huerta described seeing him “as my boss, as my hero, as, you know, somebody that would do the impossible.” Debra Rojas said, “I had love for him … He did his grooming very well.” When perpetrators abuse those who trust and depend on them, the betrayal adds to the harm of trauma. Betrayal trauma theory helps explain why. United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta looks at a mural of the late Cesar Chavez on the San Jose State University campus in San Jose, Calif., on Sept. 4, 2008. AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File Victims who depend on the people abusing them face extraordinary pressure to minimize what is happening. Disclosure can mean losing relationships or resources that are necessary for survival. Children abused by caregivers or community leaders risk relationships that they need to get their basic needs met. Adults who disclose abuse or harassment by employers risk losing their jobs and economic security. Adding to the harm of abuse, perpetrators commonly twist reality to keep victims silent. They might directly instruct victims not to tell others what happened. They might also tell victims that they are actually the ones to blame for causing the abuse or that no one will believe them. Victims must adapt to this untenable situation in which they depend on the very people causing harm. For some people, betrayal results in dissociation symptoms and memory impairment for what happened. Dissociation is a common response to traumatic stress that can include amnesia, feelings that things are unreal or feeling disconnected from what is happening. Dissociation and memory impairment can help victims maintain necessary attachments in the short run. Betrayal also contributes to more shame and self-blame, as well as more severe psychological and physical health problems. Shame and self-blame can make it harder to disclose what happened. Not surprising, then, victims of high-betrayal traumas are less likely to disclose what happened relative to other kinds of traumas. When betrayal-trauma survivors do speak up, delayed disclosures can be met with blame or disbelief, even from health providers. Survivors with more severe psychological symptoms are also met with more negative reactions to their disclosures. Betrayal also makes escaping abusive relationships, including physically violent ones, difficult. Greater dependence on the perpetrator has been linked with a greater likelihood of staying with an abusive partner a year after a police report of domestic violence. Cultural and institutional betrayal add to harm Women told The New York Times that they stayed silent about their abuse, which for some began when they were girls, in part “for fear of tarnishing the image of a man who has become the face of the Latino civil rights movement.” When people in marginalized groups are abused by someone from the same group, that constitutes an additional wound. Dr. Jennifer Gómez described this as “cultural betrayal trauma.” With cultural betrayal trauma comes even greater pressure to stay silent as well as greater harm from the abuse. When institutions such as churches, schools or unions fail to stop abuse or respond appropriately, that institutional betrayal can also add to the harm caused by the original abuse. In turn, institutional betrayal predicts greater dissociation and health problems, adding to the burden of abuse. Anticipating disbelief and blame Ana Murguia told The New York Times that she believed she would be blamed for the abuse. Huerta, who was one of three co-founders, along with Chavez, of what ultimately became the United Farm Workers union, told the newspaper that she “feared that no one within the union would believe her.” Anticipating disbelief and blame affects decisions to disclose. When researchers asked college women who were sexually victimized at some point in their lives why they kept what happened to themselves, they heard four common reasons. Women kept assaults private because they felt shame, guilt or embarrassment, minimized what happened, feared consequences of disclosing or wanted privacy. Fears about negative reactions are unfortunately well founded. Research shows that when victims do disclose, victim blaming and other negative reactions are common. In turn, those negative social reactions add to psychological distress and the harm of abuse. Connection and courage: Antidotes to betrayal In the wake of the harm that betrayal trauma causes, healing is possible through connection and care. Research shows that people can learn to respond in better ways to disclosures of abuse, such as connecting people to resources and expressing empathy. In addition, institutions that act with courage in the wake of abuse, such as by making it easy to report or taking actions to prevent future abuse, can help reduce harm to survivors. Screenshot of an Instagram post by the Dolores Huerta Foundation in the wake of her revelations of abuse by Cesar Chavez. Dolores Huerta Foundation Instagram When survivors disclose, avoiding blame, disbelief and other negative reactions can minimize additional harm. Taking steps to offer emotional support and resources can even help open doors. That’s what my research team found when we asked sexual assault survivors about the reactions they received from service providers, such as counselors or victim advocates. When survivors received more tangible support, they were more likely to later disclose what happened in a formal report to the police. Anne P. DePrince has received funding from the Department of Justice, National Institutes of Health, State of Colorado, and University of Denver. She has received honoraria for giving presentations and has been paid as a consultant. She has a book with Oxford University Press. She is an Advisory Group Member of the National Crime Victim Law Institute and a Senior Advisor to the Center for Institutional Courage.

I’m told it is not spring yet here in Boston, but I will say twice I wore a sweater to work, once a short sleeve shirt, and once a shirt and a thin jacket that was perfectly fine when I went and which was devastatingly too think for a far too cold day. I’m told this is called fools spring or something. Anyhow, still my favorite city in the world. But to… Read more

Jenner got candid in a new interview.

Attendees wearing MAGA merch stand next to an image of Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Grapevine, Texas, on March 25, 2026. Leandro Lozada AFP/Getty ImagesThere is a pall over the Make America Great Again, or MAGA, movement. Donald Trump overpromised. His public support has fallen. Some “America First” die-hards now openly criticize him. Amid war, economic challenges, democratic backsliding, the Epstein files and Americans shot dead in the street by government agents, Trump’s support is softening and his vow to bring a “golden age of America” is looking more like a political winter for Trump and his MAGA movement. This is my big takeaway from this year’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The event, organized by the American Conservative Union, launched with an international summit on March 25, 2026, and ran through March 28 in Grapevine, Texas. Don’t get me wrong. The attendees are decked out in red, white and blue MAGA merch: sequined “Trump” purses and jackets, USA flag bags, ties and headbands, and, of course, iconic red MAGA caps. As always, they chant “USA,” even if not as often or as loudly as before. Starting with the first talk by Rev. Franklin Graham, speakers here are still singing Trump’s praises. They underscore what they regard as major Trump 2.0 accomplishments: combating illegal immigration, cutting taxes, a budding economic boom, deregulation, U.S. gas and oil output surging, administrative state winnowing, pro-Christian policies and pulling the plug on the “woke” agenda. These issues are foregrounded in sessions with titles like “Walls Work,” “Don’t Let Woke Marxists Raise Your Children,” “MAGA vs. Mullah Madness,” “Commies Go Home” and “Cancelling Satan.” In between, pro-Trump advertisements checklist Trump’s accomplishments. This rose-tinted view is to be expected. After all, CPAC – a cross between a political rally, networking mixer and MAGA Comic-Con – is all about galvanizing the conservative base. Beneath the surface, however, MAGA is churning. An attendee visits a stand at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Grapevine, Texas, on March 26, 2026. Leandro Lozada/AFP via Getty Images Major grievances An anthropologist of American political culture and author of the book “It Can Happen Here,” I have been studying MAGA for years and attending CPAC since 2023. Attendees at last year’s CPAC, held a month after Trump’s inauguration, were jubilant, with nonstop talk of “the comeback kid” and “the golden age.” Read more: I went to CPAC as an anthropologist to see how Trump supporters are feeling − for them, a ‘golden age’ has begun Why is the mood at this year’s CPAC more subdued? Enthusiasm for Trump is dampened because some of his supporters feel he has betrayed America First principles, failed to fulfill key campaign promises and been unable to supercharge the economy. Here are their major grievances: ‘America First’ vs. ‘Israel First’ “America First” is the guiding principle of MAGA. It encompasses border security, prioritizing the U.S. economy and ensuring rights such as free speech. It also means avoiding unnecessary wars. This is why Trump’s support of the June 2025 “12-day war” on Iran led Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and other MAGA influencers, who have tens of millions of followers, to criticize Trump. The conflict, they contend, served Israel’s interest – their phrase is “Israel First” – not those of the U.S. Their criticisms became even more pronounced after the U.S. again began bombing Iran on Feb. 28, 2026. The criticism is part of a growing MAGA fissure with pro-Israel stalwarts such as conservative activists Mark Levin, Laura Loomer and Ben Shapiro, who support U.S. intervention in the Middle East. Things got so bad that after Levin called his fellow conservative media personality Megyn Kelly “unhinged, lewd and petulant,” she dubbed him “Micropenis Mark.” Former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio is seen at CPAC in Grapevine, Texas, on March 25, 2026. Leandro Lozada/AFP via Getty Images But the MAGA unease with the war extends well beyond the “America First” influencers. It includes figures from the fringe far right such as provocateur Nick Fuentes, center-right “brocaster” Joe Rogan, and even the Trump administration itself – as illustrated by an intelligence officer whose resignation stated, “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” Notably, none of the main Trump critics have been scheduled to speak at this year’s CPAC. Some now call it “TPAC,” or the Trump Political Action Conference. The Epstein files MAGA also has a strong populist and anti-elite streak of conspiracy thinking. Large numbers of Trump supporters, for example, believe there is an elite plot to what they call “replace” the white population with nonwhites through mass immigration. Many also bought into the QAnon conspiracy theory, which centers on the idea that Trump is fighting Satanic, deep state elites who are running a child sex trafficking operation. On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to take down political, deep state and global elites. He also promised to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, which QAnon conspiracists and others believe prove elite debauchery, including pedophilia. Trump didn’t deliver. He backtracked and stonewalled on the release of the Epstein files, raising MAGA suspicion that Trump himself is implicated or is protecting elites. Remarkably, one recent poll found that roughly half of Americans, including a quarter of Republicans, believe the Iran war was partly meant to distract from the Epstein files. Economy and immigration Trump is also facing headwinds on the bread-and-butter issues of the 2024 election: the economy and immigration. At CPAC, speakers have repeatedly given him kudos for shutting down the border. Acknowledging the MAGA in-fighting, conservative commentator Benny Johnson said he wanted to “white pill” – or buck up – the audience by reminding them that Trump had stopped an “invasion” and brought “criminal alien border crossings down to zero.” As a photo of Trump’s bloodied face after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024, was displayed, Johnson claimed, “Our God saved President’s Trump’s life for this moment.” But fewer Republicans approve of his handling of immigration compared with a year ago. Like many Americans, a growing number have misgivings about the strong-arm tactics used by government immigration enforcement agents in places such as Minnesota. For many, the economy remains a serious worry. A recent poll, conducted before the Iran war, found that the vast majority of Americans, including large numbers of Republicans, are concerned about inflation, jobs and the cost of living. Health care, including the lost Obamacare subsidies, is also a source of consternation. Few people believe the economy is “booming” – let alone that a “golden age” has arrived – as Trump and his allies often proclaim. The war with Iran, which has led to stock market declines and gas pump hikes, has only added to the unease. MAGA ‘shattered’? Amid the recent MAGA in-fighting about the Iran war, conservative podcaster Tim Pool proclaimed, “The MAGA coalition is shattered.” Not exactly. Despite the many challenges Trump is facing, the vast majority of his MAGA base voters still support him – including almost 90% backing his war with Iran. But Trump’s support has eased in several ways. First, even his hardcore supporters worry about the economy, and they want him to declare victory and exit the war. And second, Trump has lost support on the edges. Many people in the key groups with which he made crucial inroads in the last election – such as young men and nonwhite voters – have turned from him. The same is true for independents and other Trump voters who don’t identify as MAGA. Trumpism isn’t dead, as the MAGA-merched crowds here at CPAC make clear. But Trump is struggling through a political winter that could signal the early stages of his MAGA movement’s decline. Alex Hinton receives f