The Federal Emergency Management Agency has decided to stop enforcing rules designed to prevent flood damage to schools, libraries, fire stations and other public buildings. Experts say the move, which has not been publicly announced, could endanger public safety and may be in violation of federal law.
The change in policy was laid out in a Feb. 4 memo by FEMA’s chief counsel, Adrian Sevier, that was viewed by The New York Times.
The rule in question, called the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, was one of the Biden administration’s most significant efforts to address the growing costs of disasters. The rule says that when public buildings in a flood zone are damaged or destroyed, those structures must be rebuilt in a way that prevents future flood damage if they are to qualify for FEMA funding. That could include elevating a structure above the expected height of a future flood or relocating it to a safer spot.
In some cases, the standards also apply to private homes repaired or rebuilt in a flood plain.
The rule has a tortured history. FEMA first proposed it in 2016, in response to an executive order from President Barack Obama. The powerful home-building industry opposed the rule on the grounds that it would increase construction costs. When President Trump first took office in 2017, he revoked Mr. Obama’s order, stopping FEMA’s effort. Soon after taking office in 2021, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. signed a new executive order calling for a federal flood standard, which culminated in a final rule issued by FEMA last July.
The goal wasn’t just to protect people and property, according to Deanne Criswell, the head of FEMA at the time. It was also to save taxpayers’ money as climate change made flooding more frequent, causing buildings in flood plains to be repeatedly damaged and then repeatedly rebuilt with government help.
“We are going to be able to put a stop to the cycle of response and recovery, and rinse and repeat,” Ms. Criswell said at the time.
Mr. Trump, on his first day back in the White House, again revoked the executive order calling for a federal flood standard. In his memo last week, Mr. Sevier said that while FEMA considers how to amend the rule, the agency will not enforce it. “This pause must be implemented immediately while FEMA takes action to rescind or amend the policies,” Mr. Sevier wrote.
In a statement, FEMA said that the flood rule “is under review per the president’s executive order.”
But FEMA cannot simply stop enforcing a regulation, according to David A. Super, a visiting law professor at Yale University who specializes in administrative law.
If the agency wants to reverse course, it must follow a process clearly laid out by federal law: issuing a public notice, seeking and reviewing public comments and then publishing a new final rule.
Repealing a regulation can take months or longer. Until that happens, the law says that the rule remains in effect, Mr. Super said.
FEMA’s effort to “pause” the rule is in keeping with Mr. Trump’s expansionist view of presidential authority, Mr. Super said. “The president is pursuing an extremely ambitious constitutional agenda to invalidate legislation regulating the executive branch.”
Jennifer Nou, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, said the legality of FEMA’s decision depends the length of the pause in enforcement. If FEMA stops enforcing the flood rule for an extended period of time, that would put the agency in greater legal jeopardy than just a short pause, she said.
Courts generally give agencies discretion over enforcing rules, Ms. Nou said. “But that discretion is not unlimited,” she added — for example, if the agency’s position amounts to abdicating its responsibility.
Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, said failure to enforce the rule would make people less safe.
Mr. Berginnis offered the example of a water treatment plant that is damaged or destroyed and needs to be rebuilt.
Under the flood rule, that plant must be built in a way that means it’s unlikely to be damaged by future flooding. Pausing the rule leaves the plant more vulnerable. “We are jeopardizing the safety of the people in that community,” Mr. Berginnis said.
He said pausing the rule also contradicted Mr. Trump’s state goal of reducing government waste.
“Wasteful spending is when you’re spending money on repairing something you know is going to get damaged again,” Mr. Berginnis said. If FEMA doesn’t insist on reasonable flood standards, “we literally are wasting taxpayer money.”
Recently, FEMA has quietly made changes to rules meant to protect buildings in flood zones. These changes have raised concerns among environmentalists and experts in disaster preparedness.
The rules, which were put in place to ensure that buildings in flood-prone areas are built to withstand potential flooding, have been eased to allow for more flexibility in construction. This means that buildings may not be as resilient to flooding as they once were.
This decision by FEMA comes at a time when climate change is causing more frequent and severe flooding events. By relaxing these rules, FEMA may be putting more buildings and communities at risk of devastating flood damage.
It is important for policymakers and the public to be aware of these changes and to advocate for stronger measures to protect buildings in flood zones. We cannot afford to be complacent when it comes to preparing for the impacts of climate change.
Tags:
FEMA rules, flood zones, building protection, FEMA regulations, flood risk management, flood mitigation, building safety, flood zone construction, flood zone regulations, FEMA policy changes
In today’s Washington, which seethes with partisan acrimony, Democrats and Republicans at least agree on this: Israel has a right to exist. This right has been affirmed by the Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, and his Democratic antagonist, the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries; by the Biden administration’s secretary of state, Antony Blinken, and his Republican successor, Marco Rubio; by Donald Trump’s new secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, and by the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer. In 2023, the House affirmed Israel’s right to exist by a vote of 412-1.
This is not the way Washington politicians generally talk about other countries. They usually start with the rights of individuals, and then ask how well a given state represents the people under its control. If America’s leaders prioritized the lives of all those who live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, it would become clear that asking if Israel has a right to exist is the wrong question. The better question is: Does Israel, as a Jewish state, adequately protect the rights of all the individuals under its dominion?
The answer is no.
Consider this scenario: If Scotland legally seceded, or Britons abolished the monarchy, the United Kingdom would no longer be united nor a kingdom. Britain as we know it would cease to exist. A different state would replace it. Mr. Rubio, Mr. Schumer and their colleagues would accept this transformation as legitimate because they believe that states should be based on the consent of the governed.
America’s leaders make this point most emphatically when discussing America’s foes. They often call for replacing oppressive regimes with states that better meet liberal democratic norms. In 2017, John Bolton, who later became a national security adviser in the first Trump administration, argued that “the declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran.” In 2020, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the People’s Republic of China a “Marxist-Leninist regime” with a “bankrupt totalitarian ideology.”These U.S. officials were urging these countries not just to replace one particular leader but to change their political system — thus, in essence, reconstituting the state. In the case of the People’s Republic of China, which signifies Communist Party dominance, or the Islamic Republic of Iran, which denotes clerical rule, this would most likely require changing the country’s official name.
In 2020, Secretary Pompeo declared in a speech that America’s founders believed that “government exists not to diminish or cancel the individual’s rights at the whims of those in power, but to secure them.” Do states that deny individual rights have a “right to exist” in their current form? The implication of Mr. Pompeo’s words is that they do not.
What if we talked about Israel that way? Roughly half the people under Israeli control are Palestinian. Most of those — the residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip — cannot become citizens of the state that wields life-or-death power over them. Israel wielded this power in Gaza even before Hamas invaded on Oct. 7, 2023, since it controlled the Strip’s airspace, coastline, population registry and most of its land crossings, thus turning Gaza into what Human Rights Watch called “an open-air prison.”
Even the minority of Palestinians under Israeli control who hold Israeli citizenship — sometimes called “Israeli Arabs” — lack legal equality. The Jewish National Fund, which has stated that its obligations are “to the Jewish people” and that it does not work “for the benefit of all citizens of the state,” holds almost half the seats on the governmental body that allocates most of Israel’s land.
Last month, Mr. Blinken promised that the United States would help Syrians build an “inclusive, nonsectarian” state.The Israel that exists today manifestly fails that test.
Still, for most of the leaders of the organized American Jewish community, a nonsectarian and inclusive country on this land is unthinkable. Jews are rightly outraged when Iranian leaders call for wiping Israel off the map. But there is a crucial difference between a state ceasing to exist because it is invaded by its neighbors and a state ceasing to exist because it adopts a more representative form of government.
American Jewish leaders don’t just insist on Israel’s right to exist. They insist on its right to exist as a Jewish state. They cling to the idea that it can be both Jewish and democratic despite the basic contradiction between legal supremacy for one ethno-religious group and the democratic principle of equality under the law.
The belief that a Jewish state has unconditional value — irrespective of its impact on the people who live within it — isn’t contrary just to the way America’s leaders talk about other countries. It’s also contrary to Jewish tradition. Jewish tradition does not view states as possessing rights, but views them with deep suspicion. In the Bible, the Israelite elders ask the Prophet Samuel to appoint a king to rule over them. God tells Samuel to grant the elders’ wish but also warn that their ruler will commit terrible abuses. “The day will come,” Samuel tells them, “when you cry out because of the king whom you yourselves have chosen.”
The implication is clear: Kingdoms — or, in modern parlance, states — are not sacrosanct. They are mere instruments, which can either protect life or destroy it. “I emphatically deny that a state might have any intrinsic value at all,” wrote the Orthodox Israeli social critic Yeshayahu Leibowitz in 1975. Mr. Leibowitz was not an anarchist. But, though he considered himself a Zionist, he insisted that states — including the Jewish one — be judged on their treatment of the human beings under their control. States don’t have a right to exist. People do.
Some of the Bible’s greatest heroes — Moses and Mordechai among others — risk their lives by refusing to treat despotic rulers as divine. In refusing to worship state power, they reject idolatry, a prohibition so central to Judaism that, in the Talmud, Rabbi Yochanan called it the very definition of being a Jew.
Today, however, this form of idolatry — worship of the state — seems to suffuse mainstream American Jewish life. It is dangerous to venerate any political entity. But it’s especially dangerous to venerate one that classifies people as legal superiors or inferiors based on their tribe. When America’s most influential Jewish groups, like American leaders, insist again and again that Israel has a right to exist, they are effectively saying there is nothing Israel can do — no amount of harm it can inflict upon the people within its domain — that would require rethinking the character of the state.
They have done so even as Israel’s human-rights abuses have grown ever more blatant. For almost 16 years, since Benjamin Netanyahu returned to power in 2009, Israel has been ruled by leaders who boast about preventing Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from establishing their own country, thus consigning them to live as permanent noncitizens, without basic rights, under Israeli rule. In 2021, Israel’s own leading human rights organization, B’Tselem, charged Israel with practicing apartheid. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported more attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 2024 than in any year since it began keeping track almost 20 years ago.
Yet American Jewish leaders — and American politicians — continue to insist it is illegitimate, even antisemitic, to question the validity of a Jewish state. We have made Israel our altar. Mr. Leibowitz’s fear has come true: “When nation, country and state are presented as absolute values, anything goes.”
American Jewish leaders often say a Jewish state is essential to protecting Jewish lives. Jews cannot be safe unless Jews rule. I understand why many American Jews, who as a general rule believe that states should not discriminate based on religion, ethnicity or race, make an exception for Israel. It’s a response to our traumatic history as a people. But global antisemitism notwithstanding, diaspora Jews — who stake our safety on the principle of legal equality — are far safer than Jews in Israel.
This is not a coincidence. Countries in which everyone has a voice in government tend to be safer for everyone. A 2010 study of 146 instances of ethnic conflict around the world since World War II found that ethnic groups that were excluded from state power were three times more likely to take up arms as those that enjoyed representation in government.
You can see this dynamic even in Israel itself. Every day, Israeli Jews place themselves in Palestinian hands when they’re at their most vulnerable: on the operating table. Palestinian citizens of Israel make up about 20 percent of its doctors, 30 percent of its nurses and 60 percent of its pharmacists.
Why do Israeli Jews find Palestinian citizens so much less threatening than Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza? In large measure, because Palestinian citizens can vote in Israeli elections. So, although they face severe discrimination, they at least have some peaceful and lawful methods for making their voices heard. Compare that with Palestinians in Gaza, or the West Bank, who have no legal way to influence the state that bombs and imprisons them.
When you deny people basic rights, you subject them to tremendous violence. And, sooner or later, that violence endangers everyone. In 1956, a 3-year-old named Ziyad al-Nakhalah saw Israeli soldiers murder his father in the Gazan city of Khan Younis. Almost 70 years later, he heads Hamas’s smaller but equally militant rival, Islamic Jihad.
On Oct. 7, Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters killed about 1,200 people in Israel and abducted about 240 others. Israel has responded to that massacre with an assault on Gaza that the British medical journal The Lancet estimates has killed more than 60,000 people, and destroyed most of the Strip’s hospitals, schools and agriculture. Gaza’s destruction serves as a horrifying illustration of Israel’s failure to protect the lives and dignity of all the people who fall under its authority.
The failure to protect the lives of Palestinians in Gaza ultimately endangers Jews. In this war, Israel has already killed more than one hundred times as many Palestinians in Gaza as it did in the massacre that took the life of Mr. al-Nakhalah’s father. How many 3-year-olds will still be seeking revenge seven decades from now?
As Ami Ayalon, the former head of Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security service, warned even before the current war in Gaza, “If we continue to dish out humiliation and despair, the popularity of Hamas will grow. And if we manage to push Hamas from power, we’ll get Al Qaeda. And after Al Qaeda, ISIS, and after ISIS, God only knows.”
Yet in the name of Jewish safety, American Jewish organizations appear to countenance virtually anything Israel does to Palestinians, even a war that both Amnesty International and the eminent Israeli-born Holocaust scholar Omer Bartov now consider genocide. What Jewish leaders and American politicians can’t countenance is equality between Palestinians and Jews — because that would violate Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
Opinion | Israel Is Meant to Be Jewish and Democratic. It Cannot Be Both.
The ongoing conflict in Israel between the Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority has raised important questions about the country’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state. The Israeli government has long claimed to be both a Jewish state and a democratic one, but recent events have shown that these two ideals are fundamentally incompatible.
The Jewish character of Israel is enshrined in its founding documents and laws, which prioritize the rights and interests of Jewish citizens over those of non-Jews. This has led to discrimination and marginalization of the Palestinian population, who make up around 20% of the country’s population. In order to maintain its Jewish majority, Israel has implemented policies that restrict the rights of Palestinians, including land confiscation, restrictions on movement, and unequal access to resources and services.
At the same time, Israel prides itself on being a democracy, with free and fair elections, a vibrant civil society, and a robust system of checks and balances. However, the treatment of Palestinians within Israel and in the occupied territories undermines the country’s democratic credentials. Palestinians face systemic discrimination in all areas of life, from housing and education to employment and political participation. This has led to widespread protests and calls for reform both within Israel and internationally.
It is clear that Israel cannot continue to claim to be both Jewish and democratic while denying equal rights and opportunities to its Palestinian citizens. In order to truly live up to its democratic ideals, Israel must ensure equality for all its citizens, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. This may require difficult compromises and a reevaluation of long-standing policies, but it is essential for the country’s long-term stability and prosperity.
Ultimately, the future of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state depends on its ability to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory identities. It is time for Israel to choose whether it wants to remain a Jewish state at the expense of its democratic values, or to embrace true democracy and equality for all its citizens, regardless of their background. Only then can Israel truly fulfill its promise as a homeland for all its inhabitants.
Tags:
Israel, Jewish state, democracy, Middle East conflict, Israeli politics, religious identity, Israeli government, Jewish identity, two-state solution, political debate
“The Buddy Way” premieres January 29 at 5 p.m. ET on ESPN2 and will be available to stream on ESPN+ immediately following the debut.
You would’ve been lucky to know Buddy Teevens like my family did. You’re fortunate if you ever come across someone like that in life.
There was something about Buddy that just drew you in. He listened and made you feel heard. He was generous and genuine. Buddy cared — and somehow, you knew that from the moment that you met him.
That’s probably what made him a great recruiter. It’s definitely what made him a great person. My dad Archie often worked out on the track at Tulane University after his playing days. One day back in 1992, an energetic and gracious young man approached my dad to introduce himself. It was Tulane’s new football coach, Buddy Teevens.
There was one problem though. Buddy’s rapid speech combined with his Boston accent baffled my Mississippi-born father. He still likes to joke: “I wish I knew what the hell he was saying.” It didn’t matter. They were both fluent in football and family. It would be the start of a lifelong friendship.
At the time, I was a junior in high school and I’d soon get to know Buddy through the recruiting process. My heart was set on Tennessee, but I knew that I could have played for Buddy. Anyone would be lucky to have him as a coach.
In the summer of 1993, I attended Buddy’s camp at Tulane. At the end of the camp, everyone ran the 40-yard dash and your time was announced in front of the whole camp. Now, Buddy knew that my speed — or lack thereof — was a sensitive subject for me. So when it was my turn to run, he made sure to take control of the timing.
“Peyton Manning, 40-yard dash, 4.99.”
A little while later, a seventh grader took his turn at the 40. For reasons no one can explain, he ran while wearing his helmet.
“Eli Manning, 40-yard dash, 5.99.”
Maybe he was still trying to recruit me, but I promise you that I’ve never run a sub-5.0 40 in my life. As for Eli? Like I said, Buddy Teevens was a generous man.
Later that year, my family hosted college coaches for in-home visits. All of the biggest names came through — Bobby Bowden, Phillip Fulmer and Steve Spurrier just to name a few. But do you know what I remember most? Some coaches drew up plays on my mom’s fine linen napkins. But Buddy? He was the only one who helped my mother prepare the meal and do the dishes.
Buddy Teevens took care of things. Buddy Teevens took care of people. That was “The Buddy Way.”
In 1996, we started the Manning Passing Academy — a quarterback-receiver camp for players entering grades 8-12 and open to anyone who wants to attend. We wanted to teach the fundamentals. We wanted to do it the right way.
Buddy Teevens was my father’s first phone call.
That wound up being Buddy’s last year at Tulane. A different man would’ve wished us well and avoided the sweltering heat of South Louisiana in the summer. But even as Buddy’s coaching journey took him around the country, he never stopped showing up for us.
My father, my brothers Cooper and Eli and I have never missed a single minute of the camp. We cherish getting to work with young quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers and tight ends. We love to meet the talented college quarterbacks — many of whom go on to NFL stardom — who serve as counselors. But just as importantly, the camp brings us together every summer. Amidst our busy lives, we know that each June we’ll have a few days together as a family.
Over the years, Buddy Teevens became so much more than a friend and a colleague. He became part of our family.
As a coach, Buddy’s motto after a loss was “Adjust and improvise.” He brought that same philosophy to the camp — and preached it to everyone around him.
The camp can be a logistical nightmare. From just 185 campers that first year, it has grown over the past 28 years to over 1,400 kids and 150 coaches putting in work on 25 fields. Somehow, Buddy made it all run smoothly.
Lightning? No problem, let’s get everyone inside and teach them coverages. Flooded fields? No problem, everyone in the gym and we’ll work on screen passes and three-step drops.
Adjust and improvise. That was “The Buddy Way.”
Buddy Teevens led Dartmouth to five Ivy League titles and became his alma mater’s all-time winningest coach. Indeed, Buddy enjoyed tremendous success on the football field. But that’s just one part of his legacy. Other coaches may have won more games, but you won’t find a coach who had a bigger impact on the sport.
Buddy was an innovator. He just saw things differently than the rest of us. In 2010, Dartmouth was at a low point. An 0-10 season was followed by a two-win season. Another coach would’ve taken it out on his players. Buddy decided to protect them.
That’s when he decided to stop having his players tackle each other during practice. He even worked with the engineering school to develop a robotic tackling dummy called the Mobile Virtual Player.
And it worked. Dartmouth became one of the best defensive teams in the nation. But Buddy wasn’t done revolutionizing the game. In 2018, he named Callie Brownson — whom he’d met at the Manning Passing Academy — as the first female full-time coach in D-I history. It started a pipeline of female coaches, who have gone on to success at the college and professional level.
Buddy wasn’t trying to prove a point. He recognized an untapped coaching resource that could help him win football games. And it worked.
Buddy Teevens wasn’t afraid to take risks. He’d do anything to put the people around him in a position to succeed. That was “The Buddy Way.”
Coach Buddy Teevens was more than just a coach to Peyton Manning. He was a mentor, a father figure, and a guiding force in Manning’s career. Teevens believed in Manning from the very beginning, seeing the potential in the young quarterback long before others did.
Under Teevens’ guidance, Manning honed his skills, developed his football IQ, and ultimately became one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. Teevens pushed Manning to be the best version of himself, both on and off the field, instilling in him a strong work ethic, a relentless drive for success, and a humble attitude.
But perhaps most importantly, Coach Teevens was there for Manning during some of the toughest moments of his career. From devastating losses to career-threatening injuries, Teevens stood by Manning’s side, offering support, encouragement, and wisdom.
In the end, Coach Teevens played a pivotal role in shaping Manning into the legendary quarterback he is today. And for that, Manning will forever be grateful. Coach Teevens wasn’t just a coach to Peyton Manning – he was a friend, a mentor, and a true inspiration.
The Supreme Court on Thursday revived a federal law requiring companies to report information about their owners in an effort to combat money laundering, the drug trade and terrorism.
The court’s brief order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. The ruling was provisional, reinstating the law while a challenge to it moves forward.
Critics say that the law, the Corporate Transparency Act of 2021, is needlessly burdensome, a threat to privacy and an unconstitutional federal intrusion on matters that have been historically regulated by states.
The challenge to the law was brought by a firearms dealer, a technology company, a dairy, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi and the National Federation of Independent Business, which was the lead plaintiff in the first major challenge to the Affordable Care Act. As in that case, the plaintiffs in the challenge to the transparency law argued that the Constitution’s commerce clause did not authorize Congress to regulate what they said was inaction rather than economic activity.
The challengers added that the law covers tens of millions of small entities, including homeowners’ associations and family trusts. Complying with the law will collectively cost tens of billions of dollars, they said.
Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the Federal District Court in Sherman, Texas, blocked the law nationwide, saying that Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority.
“Though seemingly benign,” the judge wrote, “this federal mandate marks a drastic twofold departure from history. First, it represents a federal attempt to monitor companies created under state law — a matter our federalist system has left almost exclusively to the several states. Second, the C.T.A. ends a feature of corporate formation as designed by various states — anonymity. For good reason, plaintiffs fear this flanking, quasi-Orwellian statute and its implications on our dual system of government.”
A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit temporarily lifted the injunction, observing that the “ownership and operation of a business” are economic activities and that “a reporting requirement for entities engaged in these economic activities falls within ‘more than a century of the Supreme Court’s commerce clause jurisprudence.’”
A different three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit later reversed course, blocking the law while an appeal moved forward. Arguments before the Fifth Circuit are scheduled for late March.
The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that the standard practice is to leave federal laws in place until the justices rule that they are unconstitutional.
West Virginia and 24 other states filed a brief supporting the challengers and asking the justices to block the law, which they said “takes an unprecedented swipe at the quintessentially state-controlled area of corporate law.”
“Meanwhile,” the brief said, “the costs from that unlawful move are staggering for the states and the people who live and work there.”
Two members of the court filed short opinions.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he agreed with the court’s action but would have gone “a step further” and agreed to hear the case immediately “to resolve definitively the question whether a district court may issue universal injunctive relief.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. “I see no need for this court to step in now for at least two reasons,” she wrote. The appeals court has put the case on a fast track while the government has moved slowly, she wrote, “setting an enforcement date of nearly four years after Congress enacted the law.”
“I would therefore deny the application,” she added, “and permit the appellate process to run its course.”
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has revived a law meant to fight money laundering. The law, known as the Bank Secrecy Act, requires financial institutions to report certain suspicious transactions to the government in an effort to combat money laundering and other financial crimes.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes after a lower court had struck down the law, ruling that it was overly broad and violated the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the law was a necessary tool in the fight against money laundering and other illicit financial activities.
This decision is a victory for law enforcement and regulators who have long relied on the Bank Secrecy Act to track and combat financial crimes. It sends a strong message that the Supreme Court is committed to upholding laws that are essential to protecting the integrity of the financial system.
Overall, the revival of the Bank Secrecy Act is a significant step forward in the ongoing battle against money laundering and financial crime. It serves as a reminder that the Supreme Court is willing to take a stand against those who seek to exploit the financial system for illegal purposes.
Pixar has been captivating audiences with its heartwarming feature films for an impressive thirty years. With new Pixar movies being made every year, the iconic studio never ceases to dazzle its viewers, no matter how old they are. Of course, part of what makes Pixar movies so popular revolves around who they are made for. While the films primarily target young audiences, the filmmakers carefully craft each film so they can be enjoyed just as much by adults.
In fact, many scenes in the best Pixar films actually resonate much more deeply when watching them as an adult. This is particularly true when the movies delve into more emotional topics. While the stories and dialogue are generally simple enough for youthful audiences to understand what is going on, the deeper messages often pack a much stronger punch for older viewers. Certain scenes in Pixar films prove that filmmakers were thinking about the grown-ups just as much as the kids when making their movies.
10
Andy Lets Woody Go
Toy Story 3 (2010)
The third installment in the Toy Story franchise, Toy Story 3, continues the story of Woody and Buzz as they come to terms with the inevitable. With their owner, Andy, growing older and no longer playing with his toys, Woody, Buzz, and co. are given a new lease on life when they end up in a local daycare center. However, things there aren’t as they seem, and the toys must work together to find their way home.
Release Date
June 18, 2010
Runtime
103 minutes
Cast
Jodi Benson
, Ned Beatty
, Tim Allen
, Tom Hanks
, Joan Cusack
Director
Lee Unkrich
Writers
Michael Arndt
Budget
$200 million
Toy Story 3 thoroughly stunned viewers around the world when it was released in 2010, over a decade after the previous addition to the franchise. Despite many being unsure what to expect from this tertiary installment, viewers were blown away by the maturity and emotional depth of the film as a whole. This surprising complexity was most apparent in the film’s final scene, which featured Andy finally bidding a bittersweet farewell to his favorite toy, giving Woody to Bonnie along with the rest of his toys before heading off to college.
Despite Toy Story 4’s perfect ending between Buzz and Woody, Disney has announced Toy Story 5, and here’s everything we know so far.
This emotional scene really hit home for many of the adults in the audience, with few dry eyes left in the crowd by the time the credits started rolling. As an adult, it is never easy to say goodbye to the people who have meant so much to you for such a long time, especially when it is unclear if you will ever have the opportunity to see them again. On its surface,the final scene in Toy Story 3 may have just been about moving on from a toy, but for the adults watching, it was clearly about so much more.
9
Anxiety Goes Out Of Control
Inside Out 2 (2024)
Inside Out 2 is the sequel to the 2015 original film, which starred a young girl named Riley with a head full of emotions. – literally. With Amy Pohler as Joy, Bill Hader as fear, Mindy Kaling as Disgust, Phyllis Smith as Sadness, and Lewis Black as Anger, the all-star cast brought to life the emotions that adolescents face as they grow, change, and adapt to new situations. This sequel, currently in development, will bring Amy Pohler back as Joy, with Riley, now a teenager.
Joy
, Anxiety
, Riley
, Disgust
, Fear
, Anger
, Sadness
, Envy
, Valentina
, Grace
, Bree
, Ennui
, Mom
, Dad
, Embarrassment
, Coach Roberts
, Bloofy
, Pouchy
, Lance Slashblade
, Deep Dark Secret
, Mind Cop Frank
, Foreman
, Mind Cop Dave
, Mom’s Anger
, Nostalgia
, Dad’s Anger
, Forgetter Paula
, Fritz
, Margie
, Jake
, Forgetter Bobby
, Hockey Announcer
Director
Kelsey Mann
Writers
Meg LeFauve
, Dave Holstein
, Kelsey Mann
Experiencing new, more complex emotions is a natural part of growing older. Unfortunately, not all of those emotions are things people want to be feeling all the time. This idea formed the foundation for Inside Out 2‘s story, the long-awaited sequel to Pixar’s Oscar-winning 2015 film. In Inside Out 2, Riley’s mind is forced to welcome a group of new emotions led by Anxiety. In the film’s climactic scene, Anxiety begins to spiral out of control, forming a violent storm of negative emotions and dark thoughts in Riley’s mind, sending Riley into a panic attack.
While the children in the audience can likely have at least a general grasp of what is happening in the scene, this pivotal moment is bound to feel much more emotional for adults. The scene perfectly captures the panicked, overwhelming feeling of an anxiety attack, something so many people experience as they grow older. Seeing this sensation experienced through the eyes of a teenager who is helpless to fight it is deeply heartbreaking, particularly for viewers who have recently experienced the same type of event.
8
Marlin Gives Up Hope
Finding Nemo (2003)
A cautious clownfish named Marlin embarks on an epic journey across the ocean to find his son, who has been captured and placed in a dentist’s fish tank. Joined by the forgetful but optimistic Dory, Marlin confronts numerous challenges, learning to trust and take risks along the way.
Release Date
May 30, 2003
Runtime
100 Minutes
Director
Andrew Stanton
, Lee Unkrich
Writers
Andrew Stanton
, Bob Peterson
, David Reynolds
One of Pixar’s earliest films, Finding Nemo, tells the story of an overprotective clownfish who goes on a perilous journey across the ocean with his new friend in a desperate attempt to rescue his son. In a tragic turn of events, when Marlin finally reaches the end of his journey, he is led to believe that Nemo has already passed away. This immediately sends Marlin into a deep depression, prompting him to bid farewell to Dory, before sorrowfully turning around and beginning to head home.
The heartbreaking moment is an emotional gut punch, one which resonates especially deeply for grown-ups who have experienced a similar sensation at some point in their lives.
Few animated films have ever been able to capture the same sense of hopelessness the filmmakers were able to present through Marlin in this scene. The heartbreaking moment is an emotional gut punch, one which resonates especially deeply for grown-ups who have experienced a similar sensation at some point in their lives. Marlin has not only lost his only living family member, but he has now discovered that his entire mission was for nothing. It is nearly impossible for a younger viewer to fully grasp the utter despair he feels in this scene.
7
The “Married Life” Montage
Up (2009)
The first fifteen minutes of Up are not only one of the most iconic sequences of any Pixar movie but one of the most frequently discussed openings in cinema history. In this single, decades-spanning sequence, viewers get to watch Carl and Ellie’s entire relationship play out before them, following them from their tender first meeting through Ellie’s tragic death, highlighting all the hardships they faced in between. The montage is boldly unafraid to show all the highs and lows of their time together, even depicting Ellie suffering a miscarriage, and subsequently sinking into a depression.
Pixar is reportedly developing a new Cars movie, but out of all of the studio’s franchises, Cars isn’t the one that needs a sequel.
This sequence, often dubbed the “Married Life” montage, thoroughly stunned viewers, thanks to its breathtaking visual storytelling and heavy, emotional themes. The montage undoubtedly feels directed more toward older viewers, with some of the darker aspects (such as Ellie’s miscarriage) likely going over the heads of most children. Backed by its impeccable musical score, the “Married Life” montage brings audiences on an entire journey in a matter of minutes, one that adult viewers will continue thinking about as they progress through their own lives.
6
WALL-E Forgets EVE
WALL-E (2008)
Pixar’s WALL-E tells the story of the titular lone robot left alone on an uninhabitable Earth in the distant future. Tasked with cleaning away the endless mountains of the varied waste discarded by humanity before they left the planet, WALL-E spends his days collecting salvageable parts and items of interest. When he finds a plant, another robot arrives to collect the sample, taking WALL-E to the remnants of humanity, who have all grown morbidly obese through consistent inactivity while living in luxury on a space cruiser.
Release Date
June 27, 2008
Runtime
98 Minutes
Director
Andrew Stanton
Budget
$180 Million
Studio(s)
Walt Disney Pictures
, Pixar Animation Studios
Distributor(s)
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
WALL-E features one of the most unconventional but emotional love stories the studio has ever put together. With only minimal use of dialogue, the film shows two futuristic robots named WALL-E and EVE falling in love with each other as they go on a daring, beautiful journey through the stars together. In a shocking turn, however, WALL-E is nearly crushed in a climactic scene, causing him to lose all of his memories of EVE, and revert into a mindless, trash-cleaning robot, much to the heartbreak of EVE.
Anyone can understand the tragedy of this scene, as watching the characters’ tender romance fade away is heartbreaking at any age. However, the scene hits especially close to home for older audiences, as the thought of losing one’s memory becomes increasingly relevant with age. For people who have known someone who has begun to lose their memory as they grow older, the scene is heartbreaking. WALL-E may be a robot, but his human-like personality and emotions make these moments all the more tragic.
5
Ian Never Meets His Dad
Onward (2020)
Pixar’s Onward takes place in a land filled with mythical creatures. It concerns the story of brothers Ian (Tom Holland) and Barley (Chris Pratt), who learn that their long-lost father had unlocked the ancient power of magic, something long rendered obsolete by technological advances. The brothers learn they have just 24 hours to resurrect their father and set off on a magical quest across the land to reunite their family.
Release Date
March 6, 2020
Runtime
103 minutes
Director
Dan Scanlon
Writers
Dan Scanlon
Budget
175–200 million
Much of Onward, follows the dangerous quest of two brothers, Ian and Barley, in an attempt to interact with their dad one final time after (partially) bringing him back to life for a day. Going against what many viewers would expect, the film actually ends with Ian, the younger brother, never getting to have the interaction with his dad that he had always dreamed about. Instead, he comes to realize that Barley had been like a father figure to him for his whole life and finds a newfound appreciation for his brother.
Onward‘s ending came as a major surprise to many, offering a poignant, bittersweet resolution that few saw coming. The idea that the film was inspired by a true story made the ending even more emotional, prompting many adult viewers to think deeply about their relationships with their own siblings. The messages about the importance of brotherhood and the realization that our role models may not always be who we expect them to be resonated very deeply with countless adults, even more so than the younger viewers who may have focused more on the fantasy elements.
4
Woody And Buzz Go Their Separate Ways
Toy Story 4 (2019)
Josh Cooley directed the fourth installment in the Toy Story series and the direct sequel to 2010’s Toy Story 3. Once again starring the voices of Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, and Annie Potts, 2019’s Toy Story 4 sees Woody struggling to adapt to his new life as one of Bonnie’s toys, as Andy heads off to college.
The ending of Toy Story 4left audiences rather divided in 2019, coming nearly a decade after Toy Story 3. Throughout the franchise, audiences spent decades watching the bond between Woody and Buzz grow, even becoming one of the most iconic friendships in film history. The fourth feature-length installment made a bold, unforeseen choice, however, electing to end their latest adventure with Woody and Buzz bidding each other farewell, as Woody embarks on a new chapter of his life with Bo Peep.
Anyone watching Toy Story 4 could easily grasp the bittersweet nature of their goodbye, but only those who had been watching the films since they first came out could truly understand the emotional impact of this final moment.
The Toy Story franchise began in 1995, meaning that these characters (and their friendship) had been a staple in some people’s lives for 24 full years. Seeing this unexpectedly come to an end was heartbreaking for these dedicated viewers, but also understandable given the complex story and message of the film as a whole.
3
Bing Bong Fades Away
Inside Out (2015)
Pixar Animation’s Inside Out tells the story of a little girl named Riley and her emotions. Inside Riley’s mind exists the emotions that control her actions: Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust, and Fear. When Riley is forced to relocate to a new city, her emotions fall out of balance with disastrous results for the young girl’s life, prompting the five emotions to work together to help Riley through her troubles.
Release Date
June 19, 2015
Runtime
95 minutes
Writers
Michael Arndt
, Pete Docter
, Meg LeFauve
, Josh Cooley
Budget
175 million
At the start of 2015, few people would have guessed that a character named Bing Bong would be making them cry at the movie theater, but this proved to be the case for countless audience members.Pixar’s 2015 Inside Out explores the inner workings of Riley’s mind, personifying her emotions and creating a whole world out of her memories, thoughts, and feelings. This includes Riley’s former imaginary friend, Bing Bong. In a pivotal scene late in the film, Bing Bong sacrifices himself to save Joy, encouraging her to make Riley’s dreams come true as he fades away.
While no one was happy to see Bing Bong disappear, the tragic scene hit particularly close to home for the grown-ups in the audience, inspiring them to reflect on the imaginary playmates from their childhood that they had since forgotten about. To make matters even more emotionally devastating, the scene also prompted those viewers to look back on all the dreams they had when they were young, and whether they achieved them. Bing Bong’s last words brought tears to the eyes of numerous adults as they pondered whether they ever made it to the moon.
2
Miguel Sings To Coco
Coco (2017)
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, Miguel dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol, Ernesto de la Cruz. Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colorful Land of the Dead following a mysterious chain of events. Along the way, he meets charming trickster Hector, and together, they set off on a journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
Release Date
October 27, 2017
Runtime
105 minutes
Cast
Gael García Bernal
, Alanna Ubach
, Anthony Gonzalez
, Selene Luna
, Jaime Camil
, Edward James Olmos
, Renee Victor
, Sofía Espinosa
, Benjamin Bratt
, natalia cordova-buckley
, Alfonso Arau
Director
Adrian Molina
, Lee Unkrich
Writers
Lee Unkrich
, Jason Katz
, Matthew Aldrich
Budget
$175–225 million
Studio(s)
Disney
Distributor(s)
Disney
Over the years, Pixar has touched on the topic of memory many times, but Coco stands out as perhaps the most poignant examination of the concept thus far. Despite the film including many loud, exciting moments, the climactic scene of Coco is actually one of the most peaceful. After returning to the land of the living, Miguel finds his great-grandmother Mamá Coco and softly plays her the song that her father wrote for her many years ago. The tune sparks Coco’s memory, even leading her to begin singing with Miguel.
Even details as minor as the inflection in the characters’ voices as they sing are enough to bring a tear to the eye of any adult viewer.
Every element of the scene works together perfectly to form a beautiful, emotional moment. Even details as minor as the inflection in the characters’ voices as they sing are enough to bring a tear to the eye of any adult viewer. Not only are the lyrics heartfelt and deeply moving, but the effect they have on Coco reminds the audience of the power of love, and how the people we love dearly can never truly leave us. Coco offers a heartwarming message for anyone who has lost someone close to them, making it even more powerful for older viewers.
1
Sully Says Bye To Boo
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
Monsters, Inc. is a 2001 animated film from Pixar about top scare team members Sulley and Mike Wazowski. They work at a scream-processing factory in Monstropolis, but their world is turned upside down when a human girl named Boo enters their realm, causing panic among the monsters.
Release Date
November 1, 2001
Runtime
92 minutes
Cast
Billy Crystal
, John Goodman
, Mary Gibbs
, Steve Buscemi
, James Coburn
, Jennifer Tilly
, Bob Peterson
, John Ratzenberger
, Frank Oz
, Daniel Gerson
, Steve Susskind
, Bonnie Hunt
, Jeff Pidgeon
, Samuel Lord Black
, Jack Angel
, Bob Bergen
, Rodger Bumpass
, Gino Conforti
, Jennifer Darling
, Patti Deutsch
, Pete Docter
, Bobby Edner
, Ashley Edner
, Katie Scarlett
, Paul Eiding
Writers
Andrew Stanton
Budget
$115 Million
Studio(s)
Walt Disney Pictures
, Pixar Animation Studios
Distributor(s)
Buena Vista Distribution
Pixar is no stranger to emotional goodbyes, but many would agree that the most memorable one comes near the end of the 2001 instant classic, Monsters, Inc. After completing his crazy mission to rescue Boo and return her to the human world safely, Sully realizes that he will have to say goodbye to the young girl. This proves to be very difficult for him, as the two have formed a strong bond throughout the film. Nevertheless, he knows what he has to do, and offers her an emotional farewell before returning to the monster world once again.
For Pixarfans who are closer in age to Boo, it can be difficult to fully grasp the sadness of Sully having to leave his new friend. Even though they come from different worlds, Sully had formed a deep emotional bond with Boo, coming to care for her the way a parent would. Leaving her would mean that he would no longer be able to protect her, a feeling that any parent knows is unbelievably difficult. The scene is sad no matter what, but even more so when seen through Sully’s perspective.
The opening sequence of "Up" – The heartbreaking love story of Carl and Ellie is a tearjerker for adults as it deals with themes of loss and regret.
The final scene of "Toy Story 3" – When Andy says goodbye to his beloved toys, it tugs at the heartstrings of anyone who has ever had to let go of something they cherished.
The revelation of Bing Bong’s fate in "Inside Out" – Bing Bong sacrificing himself to save Joy is a poignant moment that explores the complexities of growing up and leaving childhood behind.
The flashback sequence in "Coco" – When Miguel learns the truth about his family history, it sparks a powerful emotional response as he grapples with the complexities of family dynamics.
The confrontation between Merida and her mother in "Brave" – The mother-daughter relationship in this film is fraught with tension and emotion, culminating in a powerful confrontation that resonates with adult audiences.
The realization of Lotso’s tragic backstory in "Toy Story 3" – Learning about Lotso’s past and how he became the bitter and resentful toy he is today adds depth to his character and evokes sympathy from adult viewers.
The reconciliation between Marlin and Dory in "Finding Nemo" – Marlin’s journey to find his son is driven by fear and grief, but his eventual reconciliation with Dory is a poignant moment that showcases the power of friendship and forgiveness.
The heart-wrenching goodbye in "The Good Dinosaur" – The emotional climax of this film comes when Arlo has to say goodbye to Spot, highlighting the bittersweet nature of growing up and moving on.
The realization of Linguini’s true parentage in "Ratatouille" – The revelation that Linguini is actually the son of Gusteau adds a layer of emotional depth to his character and explores themes of identity and belonging.
The final moments of "WALL-E" – The ending of this film, where WALL-E sacrifices himself to save Eve and humanity, is a powerful and emotional conclusion that resonates with adult audiences as it explores themes of sacrifice and love.
Pixar has been captivating audiences with its heartwarming feature films for an impressive thirty years. With new Pixar movies being made every year, the iconic studio never ceases to dazzle its viewers, no matter how old they are. Of course, part of what makes Pixar movies so popular revolves around who they are made for. While the films primarily target young audiences, the filmmakers carefully craft each film so they can be enjoyed just as much by adults.
In fact, many scenes in the best Pixar films actually resonate much more deeply when watching them as an adult. This is particularly true when the movies delve into more emotional topics. While the stories and dialogue are generally simple enough for youthful audiences to understand what is going on, the deeper messages often pack a much stronger punch for older viewers. Certain scenes in Pixar films prove that filmmakers were thinking…
The opening scene of "Up" where we see the entire life of Carl and Ellie in just a few minutes, including their struggles and joys, is a tearjerker for adults who can relate to the ups and downs of life and love.
In "Inside Out," the moment when Joy learns that Sadness plays an important role in Riley’s emotional well-being is a powerful reminder that it’s okay to feel sad and that emotions are complex.
In "Coco," the scene where Miguel sings "Remember Me" to his great-grandmother Mama Coco is a poignant moment that highlights the importance of family and the memories we hold dear.
In "Finding Nemo," when Marlin finally finds Nemo and they have a heartwarming reunion, it tugs at the heartstrings of parents who can relate to the fear of losing a child.
In "Toy Story 3," the scene where the toys hold hands as they face certain destruction in the incinerator is a powerful reminder of the bonds of friendship and loyalty.
In "The Incredibles," the moment when Mr. Incredible tells his family that he’s proud of them and that they are his greatest adventure is a touching reminder of the importance of family and support.
In "Wall-E," the scene where Wall-E shows Eve the plant he’s been caring for despite the odds is a touching moment that speaks to the power of love and perseverance.
In "Up," the scene where Carl finally lets go of his house and the memories of his past with Ellie is a bittersweet moment that shows the power of letting go and moving forward.
In "Ratatouille," the moment when Anton Ego takes a bite of Remy’s ratatouille and is transported back to his childhood is a poignant reminder of the power of food and nostalgia.
In "Brave," the scene where Merida and her mother finally understand each other and embrace their differences is a heartwarming moment of reconciliation and acceptance.
You must be logged in to post a comment.