by Shauneen Miranda, Arkansas Advocate
July 17, 2025

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, the White House announced Thursday.

The condition is “benign and common” for people above age 70, U.S. Navy Capt. Sean Barbabella, the president’s physician, wrote in a memo regarding the president’s health.

The 79-year-old president underwent a “comprehensive examination, including diagnostic vascular studies,” after he noticed mild swelling in his lower legs, the memo said.

The condition happens when veins in the leg struggle to get blood to flow back to the heart, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

In the memo, Barbabella specified that “there was no evidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or arterial disease,” and results from lab testing “were within normal limits.” Trump also underwent an echocardiogram, in which “no signs of heart failure, renal impairment, or systemic illness were identified.”

Barbabella also elaborated on recent photographs depicting minor bruising on the back of the president’s hand, saying “this is consistent with minor soft tissue irritation from frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin, which is taken as part of a standard cardiovascular prevention regimen.”

The physician noted that “President Trump remains in excellent health.” The memo did not detail any methods for treatment.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who read aloud the physician’s note at a Thursday briefing, said the mild swelling in Trump’s legs is not causing him any discomfort.

“No discomfort from the president at all, and you probably all see that on a day-to-day basis, he’s working around the clock,” she said. 

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post Trump, 79, has ‘benign’ vein condition; bruised hand blamed on handshaking, aspirin appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

This content presents straightforward health information about President Donald Trump, primarily quoting official statements from his physician and the White House. It avoids editorializing or injecting opinion, focusing instead on medical facts and direct quotes. The neutral tone and reliance on official sources contribute to a balanced perspective without clear political bias toward either the left or right.

SUMMARY: The Dessert Lab in Midtown Little Rock offers delicious mini pancakes with various flavors, including the popular Churro Delight—cinnamon sugar-coated pancakes drizzled with liche sauce and topped with sweet cream. Dana, a local, shares how her 9-year-old son Jed loves their kid-friendly “dirty sodas,” a mix of soda, creams, syrups, and boba popular in Utah. They enjoy the sweet treats and fun atmosphere, with pancakes featuring fruits like bananas and strawberries and toppings like Nutella. The Dessert Lab food truck is conveniently located near the Cantrell and Mississippi intersection, perfect for a quick, tasty summer snack.

This week on Eat It Up, Hayden Balgavy visits The Dessert Lab, a food truck in Little Rock where you can customize sweets like mini pancakes and “dirty sodas”.

Source

by Sonny Albarado, Arkansas Advocate
July 16, 2025

Arkansas’ ban on “indoctrination” in public schools doesn’t violate students’ free speech protections because the government has a right to dictate what is taught, a federal appeals court panel ruled Wednesday.

The three-judge panel from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out a lower court’s ruling that blocked enforcement of part of Arkansas’ 2023 education overhaul law. The panel sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky in May 2024 granted a preliminary injunction against the section of the LEARNS Act that prohibits “indoctrination” in public schools. Section 16 of the law specifically bans the teaching of “Critical Race Theory.” Rudofsky’s ruling applied only to the students who had sued, not the Little Rock High School teacher who was also a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The suit argued that the “indoctrination” section of the law violated the U.S. Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee the rights of free speech and due process, respectively.

Arkansas officials appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing free speech protections don’t mean students can demand that public schools teach certain topics. The appellate panel agreed in its 18-page ruling, written by U.S. Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz. Circuit Judges James B. Loken and Raymond W. Gruender were the other members of the panel.

“The students concede the classroom materials and instruction they seek to receive constitute government speech. This is fatal to their likelihood of success because the government’s own speech ‘is not restricted by the Free Speech Clause,’ so it is free to ‘choose what to say and what not to say,’” the panel said, quoting from a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Shurtleff v. City of Boston.

“Since the Free Speech Clause does not give the students the right to compel the government to say something it does not wish to, they cannot show a likelihood of success,” the appeals court ruling said.

Attorney General Tim Griffin in a statement called the appeals court ruling “an important win for the LEARNS Act and for the rule of law. With its ruling today, the Eighth Circuit continues to ensure that the responsibility of setting curriculum is in the hands of democratically elected officials who, by nature, are responsive to voters.”

The panel also ruled the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction based on the likelihood the students might succeed on their argument that the First Amendment protects a person’s right to receive information. While students have a free-speech right to receive information, they can’t dictate what schools include in their curriculum, the panel said.

“Though a listener’s right to receive information means the government cannot stop a willing private speaker from disseminating his message, that right cannot be used to require the government to provide a message it no longer is willing to say,” according to the appeals panel.

“We do not minimize the students’ concern … about a government that decides to exercise its discretion over the public school curriculum by prioritizing ideological interests over educational ones,” the panel wrote. “But the Constitution does not give courts the power to block government action based on mere policy disagreements.”

The First Amendment right to receive information doesn’t authorize a court to require the state to retain curriculum materials or instruction, “even if such information was removed for political reasons,” the ruling said. “Since the speech belongs to the government, it gets to control what it says.”

In spite of its ruling in favor of the state’s position, the panel noted: “Government speech is not immune from all constitutional challenges, and our holding does not suggest otherwise.”

The due process argument

The district court’s preliminary injunction excluded the teachers who sued because, Rudofsky wrote, they did not show irreparable harm arising from Section 16 of the LEARNS Act.

The teachers had argued the law forced them to self-censor in their classroom instruction, but Rudofsky ruled that the speech they were allegedly censoring was the state’s, not theirs. The teachers also argued that the law’s indoctrination section was so vague that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

The teachers filed motions in the appeal making similar arguments, but the appellate panel declined to consider the vagueness claim because the teachers didn’t file a separate appeal.

Arkansas Advocate Editor Sonny Albarado can be reached at salbarado@arkansasadvocate.com

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post Arkansas can outlaw public school ‘indoctrination’ and ‘critical race theory,’ appeals court rules  appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

This article presents the legal ruling on Arkansas’ LEARNS Act banning “indoctrination” in schools with a clear emphasis on judicial deference to state authority over curriculum. The language and framing largely reflect a perspective supportive of limiting classroom content according to elected officials’ decisions, aligning with conservative views on education and opposition to Critical Race Theory. However, the article also includes relevant legal context and quotes from both sides without overt editorializing, maintaining some balance. The overall tone and focus on upholding governmental control over curriculum suggest a center-right leaning in its presentation.