
Bald eagles hatched in Piedmont. It turned into a neighborhood reckoning with patriotism
Tomiko Eya, a resident of the neighborhood, wasn't crying because she was moved by the birds nested in a eucalyptus tree, but because she was concerned about the state of the country.
American iconography like the American flag and the bald eagle have long been fraught symbols for some. And as President Donald Trump continues to dismantle the rights of marginalized communities like transgender people and immigrants, long-held symbols of the federal government and freedom feel especially loaded for some Americans.
'I can't believe we're going backwards,' Eya said, looking out toward the baby birds that will grow to resemble the iconic visage of the national bird.
Put on the endangered species list in 1967, bald eagles have made a modest comeback in the Bay Area. But, observers say, this is the first time in recent memory that a bald eagle pair in the area has successfully hatched their eggs. In 2023, a mating pair attempted to nest in Alameda but never produced offspring.
On a sunny day in late July, there were almost 30 people standing on the sidewalk next to Eya and Bloustein. Cars slowed in front of the crowd, their drivers befuddled by the streetside gathering. Bloustein beckoned for them to pull over and come take a look through her cameras, which had been focused toward the nest in a eucalyptus tree for hours. Since early April, when a neighbor spotted the twin silhouettes of the hatchlings, the neighborhood has been captivated by the family of four. Now, a fledgling covered in brown feathers — their renowned white feathers won't come in for a few years — stood at the edge of the nest, stretching its wings.
For some onlookers like Eya and Bloustein, the birds — and their place in American iconography — bring up difficult feelings as a political divide deepens between citizens. The last few years have seen a flood of protests for racial justice, immigrant rights and trans rights. And while some protesters want to reclaim the American flag for the left, white supremacists and conservatives have also raised the American flag as a symbol of nationalism.
'It's the same with the flag — how do you feel looking at the flag right now?' Bloustein said to herself. 'Rage and fear. I have such a hard time right now with America in general.'
The bald eagle has been a symbol of America since 1782, when it was first featured on the Great Seal of the United States. Over the years, the eagle has come to adorn federal and state buildings, money and military uniforms. But it didn't become the national bird until 2024, when former President Joe Biden gave it that official designation.
As a youth, Eya attended schools in Chicago and Los Angeles, where she said the bald eagle seemed exclusively symbolic of the federal government. But her family history has complicated her view of American iconography.
Eya's father was incarcerated alongside other Japanese and Japanese Americans during World War II at Rohwer War Relocation Center in Arkansas — another state where bald eagles are known to hatch and raise their young. Her father's incarceration and the racial discrimination he faced after the war made him lean into patriotism, she said.
'It was such a horrible experience for him,' she said. 'And it made him more conservative, if you can believe it. He wanted to be as American as he could be.'
That trauma trickled down to Eya, too, but transformed her into a self-identified radical from a young age.
'My parents wanted me to be as white as I could be, to shut my mouth, which was very hard for me,' she said. 'I've never been that quiet.'
Before her father passed, Eya gave him an American flag for his birthday. But she'd never have one at her own home because she associates it with Japanese incarceration, slavery and other acts of state-sanctioned violence.
Still, she doesn't want to put blame on a wild animal for something humans have projected onto it. Her eyes shimmered with tears as she looked out at the tree, where one of the fledglings was spreading its wings.
'I sort of separate it out because I don't want to put any negativity on the eagles,' Eya said.
Bloustein, who lives in San Francisco, agreed.
'When Trump was elected, I started going out to Holly Park at dawn because I needed to see the sunrise and the birds — things that the government couldn't f— up,' she said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Stanford preserves legacy admissions by pulling out of Cal Grant aid program
With three weeks to go before California's ban on legacy admissions takes effect at private universities that receive state funding, Stanford has made a stunning decision: To preserve that perk, it's pulling out of the Cal Grant program that benefits hundreds of low-income students at the pricey campus. By declining Cal Grants, Stanford can continue giving admissions preference to hundreds of students who are related to alumni or whose relatives have given money to the university. The statewide ban on such legacy and donor-driven admissions takes effect Sept. 1 under Assembly Bill 1780, which was signed into law last year. Stanford officials say they will cover the canceled aid with university money, and that it will cost just $4 million a year. 'The university will continue to study the consideration of legacy status in admissions and opt out of state financial aid funding in order to comply with recent California legislation,' university officials said in a statement posted on their website over the summer. The statement noted that such admits need to be academically qualified to be considered. 'I was genuinely shocked to see Stanford make this decision. I was surprised that Stanford decided that they would rather put the thumb on the scale for the richest students than take Cal Grant money,' said James Murphy, director of postsecondary policy at Education Reform Now, a think tank that opposes legacy admissions. Stanford is one of six California private schools that last year reported giving preferential admissions to the children of alumni or wealthy donors. Stanford said it admitted 295 students this way in fall 2023, or 13.6% of all undergraduates admitted that year. The other private schools that relied on the practice were Santa Clara University, the University of Southern California, Northeastern University Oakland (formerly Mills College), Claremont McKenna College and Harvey Mudd College. None has said it was pulling out of the Cal Grant program. A wave of opposition to legacy and donor admissions emerged after the 2019 nationwide admissions bribery scandal known as Varsity Blues, in which it was revealed that wealthy parents, including celebrities, had cheated to get their children into Stanford, the University of Southern California, UCLA, UC Berkeley and other prestigious schools across the country. Opposition to legacy admissions strengthened in 2023, after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action in higher education. That ruling made it illegal for universities across the country to consider the race of applicants in admissions decisions. Then-Assemblymember Phil Ting, D-S.F., who last year authored California's ban on legacy admissions, called the practice 'affirmative action for the wealthiest Americans.' Another critic, Stanford alumnus Ryan Cieslikowski, who has pushed for similar bans across the country, said Tuesday that 'by clinging to legacy preferences,' the university is sending the message that 'the children of wealthy alumni and donors come first.' Stanford says that no one who would have received state aid will be able to tell the difference, and they need to take no action. 'Stanford will substitute university scholarship funding for California student financial assistance programs, including the Cal Grant program,' the university told the Chronicle in an email Tuesday. Stanford already pays $486 million a year to fully cover the $67,731 tuition plus room and board for students from families with annual income of less than $100,000. Pulling out of the state aid program will cost the university about $4 million a year to make up the difference, campus officials said Tuesday, noting that about 440 Stanford undergraduates and 60 graduate students received Cal Grants or Golden State Teacher Grants last year. This year's maximum Cal Grant for private school attendance is $9,708. Yet the decision to spend more to preserve legacy and donor admissions comes as Stanford is preparing to permanently lay off or eliminate 363 staff jobs in October to reduce its budget by an unspecified amount in the face or rising costs driven in part by federal policy changes. This includes a new 8% tax on its endowment — up from 1.4% — that is expected to cost Stanford $200 million this year.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang calls Trump 'America's unique advantage' because he's ramping up US energy
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Whether you see it as an advantage or a disadvantage, today of all days, one can't help but deny there's something… unique about the US thanks to President Trump. During this very AI-centric 24 hours for Trump—with his unveiling of the administration's AI action plan and his talk at the All-In Podcast's 'Winning the AI Race' summit—Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang also took to the summit stage and had some positive words to share about the US president (via RapidResponse47 on X). "America's unique advantage that no country could possibly have", Huang says, "is President Trump." Said without an air of hesitation, mind. The Nvidia CEO explains that this is primarily because the president has understood the importance of energy for AI: "On the first day of his administration, he realised the importance of AI, and he realised the importance of energy. For the last I don't know how many years, energy production was vilified, if you guys remember. We can't create new industries without energy. You can't reshore manufacturing without energy. You can't sustain a brand-new industry like artificial intelligence without energy. If we decide, as a country, the only thing we want is IP—to be an IP-only, a services-only country—then we don't need much energy. But if we want to produce things, something as vital as artificial intelligence, then we need energy." Huang is certainly right that Trump has pushed for more energy production. In April, for instance, he signed an Executive Order "requiring the automatic rescission of outdated regulations to unleash American innovation and energy production." And the president does, of course, seem to be set on pushing AI and ensuring America remains the king of that particular castle. That's surely at least part of what was discussed behind closed doors between Huang and Trump. And it is, of course, what the president is aiming for with his action plan, which looks to chart "a decisive course to cement US dominance in artificial intelligence", through, for instance, deregulation and AI exportation. This latter point is one that Huang was keen on emphasising after the Trump administration restricted the export of Nvidia's chips to China. Those restrictions have since been lifted somewhat, as Nvidia can now continue H20 exports to the eastern superpower. Given all this, it's not exactly surprising that Huang would be acting as hype man for the president, here. As it stands, Nvidia holds the (hardware) keys to the AI kingdom, and it's a kingdom that the president wants the US to lead the charge of. None of this is to call the headstrong push into all things AI-wise, mind you. That particular question is one we might not know the answer to until we're already there, in a completely AI-clad world. One would hope that fact might inspire a little caution, but alas. There are also many, I'm sure, who will be keen to point out that energy deregulation and ramped energy production for AI might not be the wisest decision, either. Though the retort would be that the AI arms race is one the US cannot afford to lose. Whichever side of that particular argument you come down on, it's a big bet to take. AI companies are borrowing and spending billions of dollars and have yet to see anywhere near break-even returns. Some might call that a bubble, others a necessary investment into the fourth industrial revolution. Whatever the case, it looks like the US president and Nvidia CEO are walking the same road, for now. Even if Trump does seem to want this hefty amount of power consumption explained to him. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After saying he should resign 'immediately', President Trump changes his mind about Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan and calls his 'success and rise' an 'amazing story', looks forward to fixes for Intel's foundry
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. I suppose it's never a good idea to assume consistency with the Trump administration, given the record of flip flops. So shame on me for not seeing this particular flippy flop coming, as just one week after calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan's resignation, the US President has called his "success and rise" an "amazing story", and has hinted at possible collaboration with Intel. Speaking on Truth Social after meeting with the Intel CEO yesterday, Trump says: "The meeting was a very interesting one. His success and rise is an amazing story. Mr. Tan and my Cabinet members are going to spend time together, and bring suggestions to me during the next week. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Intel also spoke positively about the meeting: "Earlier today, Mr. Tan had the honor of meeting with President Trump for a candid and constructive discussion on Intel's commitment to strengthening U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership. We appreciate the President's strong leadership to advance these critical priorities and look forward to working closely with him and his Administration as we restore this great American company." Talk of the president's "strong leadership" from Tan isn't exactly a surprise, given what we've seen previously from tech CEOs. I suppose it makes sense for these companies to stay on Trump's good side. Recent pleasantries aside, last week, despite the president not having the ability to force Tan's resignation, Trump said, "The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!" That "conflict" was in reference to Tan's alleged ties to China. He was previously CEO of Cadence Design Systems, and this company pleaded guilty this year and agreed to pay over $140 million for "unlawfully exporting semiconductor design tools to a restricted PRC Military University." It's also been reported by Reuters that the Intel CEO invested $200 million or more in hundreds of Chinese companies between 2012 and 2024. It is worth noting that such investments in Chinese companies isn't necessarily strange, if you're running a diverse investment portfolio. It could very well be just business, as they say. Perhaps Lip-Bu Tan relayed something similar to Trump, resulting in the flipped opinion. Y'know, appeal to the business mogul side of the ex-Apprentice host US president. Or, perhaps it was the national importance of Intel, and Tan's commitment to the company as a bastion of US technology, that he laid on heavy. The CEO had previously mentioned the possibility of ditching its 14A process, and some interpreted this as a way to get the US gov to the table to help out, because it probably won't want to let the all-American tech company disappear entirely. Trump's talk of "spending time together" and "bringing suggestions to me" certainly reinforces this idea. And with former Intel board members arguing for Intel fabs to be bought up by the likes of Nvidia, Qualcomm, Broadcom, et al, to create an "American Foundry", the president must be keenly aware of the national importance of the US chip giant and its future. Still, that doesn't explain why the flip concerning Lip-Bu Tan specifically. Maybe it was just a way to get the Intel CEO to the table quicker and more ready to discuss US-first solutions. Whatever the case, he seems to be back in Trump's good books, for now.