In partnership with

America’s Reputation Reconsidered

For generations, Americans have been taught that the United States is a global force for freedom, democracy, and opportunity. Yet beyond our borders, that image is becoming increasingly complicated. 

From Europe to Latin America, from the Middle East to Africa, people view the United States through the lens of wars, foreign interventions, economic sanctions, and political polarization. While many admire American innovation, universities, and democratic ideals, others question whether our country lives up to the values it claims to embody.

These perceptions matter more than many young voters realize. In an increasingly interconnected world, America’s reputation shapes everything from international alliances to economic partnerships and global security. As young voters step into politics, understanding how the rest of the world sees the United States is no longer just a foreign policy question. It is a question about America’s future place in the world.

Latin America offers one of the clearest examples of U.S perception. During the Cold War, the United States intervened politically in efforts to combat communism. Those memories still shape public opinion today. Most recently, the U.S arrested Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s authoritarian president. To many Americans, arresting Maduro is a justified response to authoritarianism. Yet to critics around the world, efforts by the U.S to influence the fate of another country’s president can look like a dangerous overstep of power. The concern is not necessarily support for Maduro, but rather the precedent it sets: should one nation have the ability to decide the political future of another?

Europe, one of America’s closest allies, has also grown more critical. One of the most significant sources of tension has been America’s continued support for Israel during the war in Gaza. American support for Israel has led some Europeans to question whether the United States applies human rights standards consistently. Critics argue that the United States is quick to condemn human rights abuses by adversaries while being reluctant to hold allies accountable. European concerns have also been fueled by America’s political polarization, debates over immigration, and uncertainty surrounding its role in global conflicts. Again, raising the broader question: can the United States continue to present itself as a global moral leader if its actions appear inconsistent with the values it promotes?

Recent tensions with Iran have further shaped international perceptions of the United States. The Strait of Hormuz remains an area of conflict, disrupting global energy markets and economies. In Africa, cuts to foreign aid and public health programs have also drawn criticism as parts of Central Africa face a growing Ebola outbreak. Together, these developments have led some international observers to question whether the United States is committed to long-term global leadership or engages only when its strategic interests are at stake. 

According to a 2026 Pew Research survey, the majority of international respondents now view the U.S. as less favorable than China. This shift largely occurred during the beginning of the second Trump administration. With unstable, aggressive rhetoric and action, Trump has alienated even traditionally strong allies—as well as their populations. The simultaneous decline of American legitimacy and Chinese ascendance has contributed to an increasingly fractious image of the United States

The debate over America’s global image is not simply about popularity but credibility. Whether discussing Venezuela, Gaza, Iran, Europe, or Africa, many of the world’s opinions about the United States are rooted in history. Some view America as a defender of democracy, while others see a country too willing to intervene abroad while struggling with challenges at home.

For young voters, this presents an important challenge. The next generation will help determine what role America plays in the world. Will the United States continue to rely on military and economic power, or can it rebuild trust through diplomacy, cooperation, and consistency? The answer may determine not only how America sees itself, but how the world sees America.

– Lorin Hsieh, rising senior at Oconee County High School & Isabella Carvajal, rising junior at Georgia State University

The ROAD to Somewhere, Someday

Congress just passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act—the first major federal housing law in three decades, with bipartisan margins so wide they'd make you forget what year it is. Don't get me wrong, that's notable. In a Congress that can't agree on what day it is, this one got 358 votes in the House. A win is a win.

But read past the headline, and the bill is thinner than the applause suggests. Its marquee provision bars large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes once they own 350 of them. Sounds tough, until you remember that single-family homes were never where the affordability crisis was actually happening. Institutional investors own less than five percent of the single-family homes in this country. 

Here's where the real story is: apartments. My generation can't afford to buy, so we rent. And developers followed the money straight to us. In 2024, the U.S. built roughly 600,000 new apartment units, the most in 38 years. I watched it happen in real time in my own home city of Smyrna, Georgia, where cranes went up over what used to be parking lots and empty stretches of Cobb Parkway, and buildings that didn't exist during COVID were fully leased by the time I signed my own lease this year.

So now we're drowning in apartments, and the numbers say that should be great news for renters. Nationally, close to 40% of listings are dangling move-in incentives—a free month here, waived fees there—because property managers have more units than tenants to fill them. But the actual number that matters isn't dropping to match. And that's not landlords being stingy out of habit, or at least not only that.

It’s debt. America runs on debt.

Complexes are financed with loans that were underwritten against a projected property value. That value is tied directly to how much rent the building is expected to bring in. Drop the rent enough, and the property's appraised value drops with it, which can breach something called a loan-to-value covenant, a threshold the lender set to protect their own collateral. Breach that covenant, and you can trigger a default. Not a metaphorical one. An actual, contractual, the-bank-can-come-for-this-building default.

So landlords hand out a free month instead of cutting the sticker price. It moves the needle for a new tenant without moving the number the bank is watching. 

I want to be extremely clear: I am not here to defend landlords. I will not be doing that today, tomorrow, or during the ceremony they hold when I die. But a wave of defaults doesn't stay a landlord problem. It becomes a renter problem fast—foreclosures, ownership churn, buildings sold off to whoever's left holding the loan, and tenants caught in the middle of a fight they didn't start and can't afford to lose.

The ROAD to Housing Act doesn't touch any of this. It caps a number that was never the problem, while the actual mechanism reshaping how millions of us rent—leverage, appraisals, and covenants none of us signed, but all of us are bound by—sails on completely untouched. "Bipartisan" doesn't mean "sufficient." 

- Nakyla Stallings, Upcoming 1L at GSU Law

America’s Gun Problem, By the Numbers.

According to Pew Research, about 44,000 people died of gun-related injuries in the United States in 2024. In Georgia, 17.6 people per 100,000 died from guns. 76% of homicides and 57% of suicides involve a gun. More children die from firearms than any other cause in the United States. More than 200 Americans visit the emergency department for firearm injuries every day, according to John Hopkins. 

It’s clear that the United States has a gun issue.

Despite these statistics, the Trump administration has taken major strides to relax gun regulations. One such regulation is eliminating the “gun show loophole,” which allows private sellers to deal firearms at gun shows without licenses and background checks. Donald Trump showed interest in reversing the restriction on this loophole, among other restrictions such as on bump stocks and short-barrel rifles. Lifting restrictions on bump stocks would be especially problematic given their usage in the infamous 2017 Las Vegas shooting. 

As a young voter, I believe this crisis is especially important given its simplicity. Gun control is on the easier side of issues that a willing government can address, since the top priority of gun law reformists is policy change. Countries with stricter gun laws actually see a decrease in gun-related crimes, contrary to the typical “protection” defense. Australia, Japan, and Canada are all examples of this phenomenon.

I care about gun control because I care about people. Our government should do the same. 

- Shaheer Ul-Islam, UGA Student

Priced Out of Public Service

As a first-generation college student preparing to graduate and pursue a Master of Public Administration, paying for graduate school is something that requires real planning. Tuition, loans, work, and future earnings all have to be considered when paying for a master’s degree independently. It makes education policy feel personal because changes made at the federal level can completely reshape a student’s plans.

First, here is a breakdown of what these changes mean: 

Federal support for graduate education changed significantly on July 1, 2026. New borrowers can no longer use Grad PLUS loans, which previously helped cover the cost of attendance after other federal loan limits were reached. Graduate students are now generally limited to $20,500 per year and $100,000 overall. Students in designated professional programs may receive up to $50,000 per year and $200,000 overall. This creates a difference of nearly $30,000 in annual borrowing based on how a degree is classified. Some students who borrowed before July 1 may remain under the former rules for up to three years if they continue in the same program. J.P. Morgan’s overview⁠ breaks down these changes.

Under the policy, “professional degree” is an administrative category that determines eligibility for higher loan limits, not a judgment about a career’s value. Medicine, law, and dentistry qualify, while a temporary court order has added certain nursing, psychology, and therapy programs. An MPA remains a regular graduate degree subject to the lower limit. The current classifications are available through Federal Student Aid⁠.

Once the numbers are explained, the bigger concern is what they mean for students. The limits are intended to reduce excessive borrowing and encourage universities to control tuition. This issue is significant: according to the Department of Education, graduate students received more than half of newly issued federal student loans in recent years, and graduate debt accounts for approximately half of the nation’s outstanding $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

Reducing debt that students may struggle to repay is a worthwhile goal. At the same time, a lower borrowing limit does not automatically mean a lower tuition bill. If universities do not reduce their prices, students will have to make up the difference through scholarships, additional work, family assistance, or private loans. For students paying their own way, that could mean working more hours, changing programs, or reconsidering graduate school altogether.

Past research shows why this deserves attention. A 2023 analysis of student debt and the low-wage workforce⁠ found that debt can discourage graduates from continuing their education. Another study included in the analysis found that 20% of graduates with more than $20,000 in student loans said their debt discouraged them from pursuing an advanced degree.

Debt can also limit what students do after graduation. Research cited in the analysis found that graduates with debt were more likely to choose higher-paying positions and less likely to enter lower-paying public interest careers. For someone considering government or nonprofit work, that choice can be difficult. A student may want to serve a community but still needs to earn enough to repay the education required to enter the field.

These pressures are not felt equally. Low-income and first-generation students may have less family wealth available to cover tuition or help with repayment. Black and Latino borrowers can also experience student debt alongside broader income and wealth disparities. When students begin from different financial positions, the same loan policy can affect their choices very differently.

These studies were conducted before 2026. This shows that student debt was already shaping educational choices, career decisions, and economic mobility before the restrictions. The new rules are being introduced into a system where those differences already exist.

Education policy matters to more than students. Graduate programs help prepare future public administrators, healthcare providers, educators, mental health professionals, and nonprofit leaders. If fewer students from rural, working-class, or underrepresented communities can afford these programs, the institutions serving those communities may lose future professionals who understand their needs firsthand.

Each of these factors comes down to opportunity and representation. A strong democracy depends on people from different backgrounds being able to participate in public institutions and help make decisions that impact those from every background. Accessibility to graduate education is part of that path.

- Ava Mulkey, Senior at UGA 

Growing Up in the Trump Era

There have been quite a few significant events that have shaped my formative years, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the spread of social media, and the rise of artificial intelligence. However, above all of these things, the most defining characteristic of this moment in history has been Donald Trump's rise to power. 

I first learned about Donald Trump back in 2015, when I was 10 years old. While my parents knew him as the host of The Apprentice and a notorious sleazebag, I was only made aware of him when he decided to run for president.

To people my age, it's impossible to remember politics before Trump. Though I remember going to the polls with my mom to vote for Obama in the 2008 election, like most three year olds, I just wasn’t keeping tabs on politics. By the time I was old enough to understand the basics, Trump had already entered center stage.

The debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was my first presidential debate; suffice it to say, it did not make a good first impression. My teachers had always described presidential debates as these formal, almost boring, discussions of policy, but the 2016 debates were anything but formal.

Insults, name calling, childish retorts, divisiveness, baseless accusations, and lies had all become defining characteristics of American politics by the time I was old enough to pay attention. 

There were audio recordings of the President saying words that I would be grounded for repeating and videos of him approaching girls no older than myself. I first learned the word “pornstar” thanks to the Stormy Daniels scandal. This pattern of immorality didn’t stop.

For most of my life, the most prominent figure in American Politics has been a lying, cheating, Epstein Island-visiting, 34-count felon who has seen his net worth increase by billions of dollars while the American people continue to suffer under his watch. He has falsified business documents, desecrated the White House, scammed his own supporters, undermined trust in elections, started pointless wars, stolen classified documents, scapegoated immigrants, and inspired a violent mob to attack the nation’s capital for the first time since the war of 1812.

This article is not long enough to list every misdeed of Donald Trump, due in large part to the fact that he’s mentioned in the Epstein files more than 38,000 times. However, even if it is impossible to enumerate all the ways in which Donald Trump is evil, from the time I was 10 years old, it has been clear that this man is not fit to lead a conga line, let alone the most powerful and influential nation on Earth.

Despite all of the harm and negativity to come out of Trump’s presidency, thanks to the plainly visible corruption and incompetence, he has indirectly inspired young people like me to try to right the ship. My generation has grown up knowing nothing but Trump’s failed politics. Now, we begin to enter the workforce and gain a voice of our own. My vote will be heard, and it won’t be to repeat this last decade. America deserves better. You deserve better. 

- Isaac Fleischer, Rising Senior at the University of Georgia

The Veins That Run Through Georgia

When people think about elections, they often picture campaign ads, debates, or Election Day itself. But the moments that have shaped my perspective haven't happened at the ballot box, but instead over phone calls with students I've never met.

As a College Organizer with the Georgia Youth Justice Coalition, one of my responsibilities is calling young people and inviting them to civic engagement and community organizing events. Before I started, I expected many conversations to end with a quick "no thanks." Instead, I've been surprised by how many students ask questions, wanting to learn more about what's happening in Georgia and appreciating being invited into a space where they can get involved. Those conversations remind me that young people aren't disconnected from politics, but more often, they're waiting for someone to show them that there's a place for them in it.

That realization has stayed with me beyond GYJC. Through my work with the Asian Student Alliance, I've seen how creating opportunities for young people to gather, learn, and organize builds confidence that lasts far beyond a single event. Whether it's discussing issues affecting our communities, volunteering together, or simply helping someone attend their first civic meeting, every interaction makes participation feel a little less intimidating and a little more possible.

I know how important that first invitation can be because I once needed it myself. Before I became involved in organizing, I often felt overwhelmed by the number of issues facing my community and unsure where I could make a meaningful difference. Finding organizations that welcomed young people into the work transformed that uncertainty into action. It taught me that civic engagement doesn't begin when someone turns eighteen or casts a ballot. It begins the moment someone realizes their voice belongs in the conversation.

Young people are often told that these are the years to build a resume, secure internships, prepare for graduate school, and figure out the rest of our lives. Those pressures are real. They can make civic engagement feel like something to care about "later," after everything else is settled. But the world we will inherit isn't waiting for us to finish our to-do lists. The decisions being made today will shape the communities we graduate into, work in, and eventually raise families in.

That's why youth organizing has become so meaningful to me. It's not about asking students to put their ambitions aside, but about reminding them that investing in their communities is also an investment in their futures. The skills we develop by listening to our neighbors, organizing around shared concerns, and participating in local elections don't compete with our personal goals. They help shape the kind of society those goals exist within.

- Chloe Lee, student at Emory University

The Veins That Run Through Georgia

“A society—any society—is defined as a set of mutual benefits and duties embodied most visibly in public institutions: public schools, public libraries, public transportation, public hospitals, public parks, public museums, public recreation, public universities, and so on.” - Robert Reich, former United States Secretary of Labor. 

It is our duty to create a functioning society for ourselves but also for future generations. With no functioning public systems, is there a functioning society? The answer to that isn’t black or white; it’s grey. So far, the state of Georgia has functioned and profited with a broken public transportation system. In 2026, Georgia’s GDP has reached $717.4B, which is only a 2.2% increase from the last five years. So, Georgia has done a pretty good job in exceeding economic expectations. 

However, the residents of Georgia bear the brunt of our society’s shortcomings. Georgia residents are struggling with public transportation. Most of Georgia’s essential resources lie in the heart of the state: Atlanta. With the new closures in rural hospitals and healthcare facilities, rural families have to commute at least one hour to receive the proper care and treatment. However, it doesn’t stop there. 

The increase in traffic in metro Atlanta makes the everyday commute a stressful experience. Traffic times exceed at least 45 minutes to a destination that should only be 20 minutes away. Residents are hoping for an expansion in public transportation services. In fact, the city of Atlanta and MARTA were hoping to expand to the metro Atlanta counties of Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Clayton, and Cobb. However, voters in Cobb and Gwinnett County voted against the proposal. The proposal included a 1% sales tax increase to cover the funding of MARTA expansion, but voters were not pleased with the proposal.

Georgia residents desire public transportation as a means to alleviate travel concerns, but the state has manufactured holdups to prevent funding. Instead of leaving the issue of public transportation to the counties and individual cities, the state government should step in. Allocate more funding to public transportation services and create more opportunities for people. If the state is going to deprive rural residents of essential resources, provide for them with alternative, efficient ways to receive what they deserve. Public transportation is the health of our society. It’s the veins that run through the body of Georgia. 

We have a great economy, but we can be even better if our society functions at the best interests of our residents. 

- Azha Mosley, Rising Senior at UGA

Labor on My Mind

Right before this piece, you read about MARTA. About the delays, the underfunding, the sense that the system limps along because no one in power has to answer for it. Here's a fact that piece probably didn't have room for: MARTA workers are unionized. They have been for years. And under Georgia law, they are not allowed to strike.

O.C.G.A. § 45-19-2 makes it plain: no public employee in this state may promote, encourage, or participate in a strike. Break that rule and you don't just lose your job. You forfeit your civil service status, and you're locked out of public employment for three years. So the next time you wonder why your bus is late or your kid's teacher is burnt out and underpaid, remember: they are legally barred from the one tool that has ever forced anyone to take workers seriously. They can organize. They can vote. They cannot withhold their labor. A union that can't strike is a union that can ask nicely.

And Georgia wants you to believe that's just how organizing goes, that strikes don't work anyway.

But is that true?

Ask the dockworkers at the Port of Savannah. In October 2024, the International Longshoremen's Association walked off the job for the first time since 1977. Three days later, they had a tentative deal for a 61.5% wage increase over six years. That's not a coincidence. And it is likely not a coincidence that you haven’t heard about it. That's what happens when workers are legally allowed to make themselves expensive to ignore.

Which is the point. Georgia isn't short on labor protections by accident. It's a right-to-work state, a phrase that's done more marketing for the business lobby than any ad campaign could. It guarantees your employer the right to fire you for nearly any reason, any time, without so much as an explanation. Call it what it actually is: a right-to-fire state. You can be let go for asking about overtime, for mentioning a union, or for being inconvenient.

None of this happened by accident, and if you trace it back far enough, the through line is obvious.

When the National Labor Relations Act passed in 1935 as a part of the New Deal—the law that still underwrites the right to unionize in this country—it carved out two categories of workers who wouldn't be covered: domestic workers and agricultural workers. 

In the South, those two categories consisted mostly of sharecroppers and migrant workers. It was the price of Southern Democratic votes, the compromise that let the New Deal pass at all. Extend federal labor protections to sharecroppers, and you extend them the power to organize, to demand better terms, and to withhold their labor. But class and race have always been intrinsically linked.

It's why the Poor People's Campaign never took off the way it should have here. It didn't fail in Georgia because it was unpopular. It failed because it worked, because it started pulling together poor Black and poor white Southerners around the thing they actually had in common: class. That kind of coalition, the same one Fred Hampton was building in Chicago with the Rainbow Coalition before he was killed under COINTELPRO, has always been unnerving to the status quo. 

Which is why it's worth paying attention to what's happening now.

As DSA-aligned candidates keep winning, the response from the right has been to reach for the oldest playbook available, but I was sure that we left McCarthyism in the 70s. But we are older and wiser now, I hope. The world has changed. The Scandinavians and Europeans have shown us that universal healthcare can work, that education should be funded by the state, and that protections for workers are fundamental rights.

It is my promise to myself and to my community that I can only vote for candidates who stand with workers and unions. Economic rights are human rights. If a candidate cannot stand by their values, by the people, then they don’t have my vote. 

- Nakyla Stallings, Upcoming 1L at GSU Law

What the New ESA Revisions Mean for America’s Wildlife

Last week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced proposed revisions to regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the landmark 1973 law that has protected America’s threatened and endangered wildlife for decades.

Since its passage, the ESA has been one of the nation’s most effective conservation laws, safeguarding species not only from direct harm but also from the habitat destruction that has driven countless populations toward extinction.

Among the most significant changes is the elimination of the “blanket rule”, which provides certain protections for newly threatened species. These protections (named “take”) include attempts to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

The proposal would also require federal agencies to weigh economic and national security interests more heavily when designating critical habitat. With these Trump-spearheaded revisions, any area can be excluded from being designated as a critical habitat so long as doing so would not cause a species’ extinction. 

The Trump Administration has defended these changes by arguing that current ESA regulations are “outdated” and that the revisions would reduce what it describes as years of federal overreach.

In practice, these revisions could leave formerly protected habitats vulnerable to expanded oil and gas drilling, mining, and other industrial development. 

The consequences are already evident in the Gulf of Mexico, where regulatory changes have allowed increased oil and gas activity within habitat used by Rice’s whale.

For a species with an estimated population of only about 50 individuals, the stakes could not be higher. 

Oil spills are a known threat to whale populations, with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill killing around 17% of the Rice’s whale population. 

These implications extend far beyond a single species. If habitat protections continue to be narrowed in favor of short-term economic interests, exemptions may become routine. 

For species already hanging on by a thread, the difference between recovery and extinction often depends not on whether they are legally protected, but whether the places they call home are.

- Elina Flinn, rising sophomore at the University of Georgia

Healthcare is on Life Support

I’m part of the Covid generation. We were introduced to Zoom on a random Friday in March, given an extra long spring break, and told to figure out the new normal. Our graduations, sporting events, drivers education programs, and other notable life events were fundamentally altered by the pandemic. Every time I put on a mask, I’m reminded of just how much healthcare affects my life.

COVID made precarity the norm. Today, I am just as uncertain of the future of American healthcare. COVID should have rallied the country behind our healthcare workers and researchers, who created a vaccine at unprecedented speed and efficiency. Instead, we’re more skeptical of science than ever. Child vaccination rates have fallen below the 95% rate most scientists recommend (1)—any lower, and the population no longer achieves herd immunity. There have been over 4,500 cases of measles since 2025, more than the past two decades combined. Public trust in the Centers for Disease Control has also declined since 2021. When we can’t trust our experts, we can’t implement their best practices. When we can’t implement their best practices, we open the door to pandemics we shut out long ago and begin the cycle of doubt anew.

The skepticism towards public health initiatives will only worsen with funding cuts. The Trump administration has cut over 20,000 public health jobs and $600 million in public health funding. It slashed $3.8 billion in NIH grants - many of which were directed towards cancer and HIV research. This research, which could have led to the next medical breakthrough, will likely be abandoned indefinitely. The One Big Beautiful Bill’s medicaid cuts are estimated to kick ten million people off of health insurance. The damage of these cuts isn’t limited to low-income Americans. It forces hospitals and taxpayers to foot the bill for those who are unable to afford care, handicaps workers, and takes the lives of beloved members of our communities. 

America is more vulnerable in the absence of federal support for public health. Private companies are capable of medical breakthroughs, but increasing our dependence will lead to worse outcomes in the long-run. Seven companies owned 75% of the healthcare market at the beginning of the Trump administration. More concerningly, this ownership is at every stage of the healthcare process (2). 

The parent company that owns the primary care clinic you visit will likely own the pharmacy where your medicine is sent. The price of the medicine will be decided by a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), who will charge a fee to decide the price of the medicine. The PBM will work for the same company. If your primary care doctor decides that you need more extensive care, they will refer you to a specialist owned by the same parent company. Then, when it is all said and done, the parent company will decide what price it wants to charge its hospitals. That’s right: your hospital can make up how much its services are worth, and can give itself whatever discount it wants.

It seems unfair because it is. 

Moreover, these companies often refer patients to their hospitals, which are more expensive than stand-alone clinics. Researchers estimate that a fully integrated healthcare network would lead to hundreds of millions in extra costs. Hospital networks have no incentive to make their care cheaper. In fact, insurance companies have an incentive to deny coverage. 

As we increasingly depend on these companies, we provide them leverage to pursue anti-competitive policies at the expense of patients. We cannot continue with our consolidation of care. People are being left behind by the government and priced out by the private sector. It is an unsustainable trend, and one we will pay for in the long-run.

The COVID era began six years ago. I’ll have to pay for my own health insurance a few years from now. When I go to the ballot box, I’ll be asking, “Who will take our health seriously?” My body will grow old, and I’ll eventually have health problems. My generation will look to the government, politicians, and researchers to solve our pressing health concerns. However, I worry that by the time our leaders address them, it will be too little, too late. 

- Andrew Burchett, rising-senior at Emory University

👀Next week: The Intern Takeover

This is a good week to share, forward this newsletter, or send them the sign-up link.

The free newsletter making HR less lonely

The best HR advice comes from people who’ve been in the trenches.

That’s what this newsletter delivers.

I Hate it Here is your insider’s guide to surviving and thriving in HR, from someone who’s been there. It’s not about theory or buzzwords — it’s about practical, real-world advice for navigating everything from tricky managers to messy policies.

Every newsletter is written by Hebba Youssef — a Chief People Officer who’s seen it all and is here to share what actually works (and what doesn’t). We’re talking real talk, real strategies, and real support — all with a side of humor to keep you sane.

Because HR shouldn’t feel like a thankless job. And you shouldn’t feel alone in it.

Sign Up Free

News for Everyday Americans!

The Flyover offers the alternative to traditional news. They deliver quick-to-read, informative content across sports, business, tech, science, and more that cuts through the noise of mainstream media.

The Flyover's talented team of editors ensure you stay informed on top stories and equipped to win your day. Join over 3 million readers who trust The Flyover to provide unbiased insights.

Subscribe for FREE!