1). “Who wants to visit an authoritarian America? Trump take tourism”, Oct 17, 2026, Brynn Tannehill, Public Notice, at < https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-us-tourism>.
2).“Majority of Polled Scientists Considering Leaving United States, Signaling 'Brain Drain' ”, Mar 27, 2025, Grace van Deelen, Eos, at <https://eos.org/research-and-developments/majority-of-polled-scientists-considering-leaving-united-states-signaling-brain-drain >.
3). “Meet the researchers leaving the US because of Trump’s funding cuts and politicization of science”, Oct 19, 2026, Adithi Ramakeishnan, AP, at <https://apnews.com/article/trump-science-research-funding-cuts-9f4c34581f4343f316a5e72852a71b51?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us >
4). “Top researchers consider leaving U.S. amid funding cuts: 'The science world is ending' ”, Sep 2025, PBS Newshour, duration of video 9:26, at <
>.5). “Researchers warn U.S. is on the 'precipice' of brain drain as Trump cuts federal grants”, Jun 16, 2025, Laura Santhanam, PBS Newshour, at < >https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/researchers-warn-u-s-is-on-the-precipice-of-brain-drain-as-trump-cuts-federal-grants.
~~ recommended by desmond ~~
Introduction by desmond: For the first time in its history the U.S. has become nearly universally despised, at least the far-right political leadership and socioeconomic elites who are both looting and destroying what was good about the, admittedly flawed, society.
In Item 1, “Who wants to visit ….”, the author notes that in general even Americans are becoming less favorable in their views of the U.S. and general travel to the U.S. is reduced and tourism is down:
“For the first time in 50 years, the US experienced negative net migration in 2025. The country isn’t letting much of anyone in, and record numbers of people are choosing to be somewhere else if they have the option ….
“There are far more who would leave if the opportunity was there. Last year Gallup found that 20 percent of all Americans would move out of the US if they could, and 40 percent of young women would prefer to leave. A Williams Institute study found that 45 percent of transgender people would like to escape elsewhere, and 75 percent of scientists are considering leaving the United States. (Emphasis added) ….
“The US hosted this year’s FIFA World Cup, which happens only once every four years and involves the most popular sport in the world. Attendance at games was high, but it was driven primarily by domestic audiences. International travel to the United States fell far below expectations …..
“Applicants faced $185 visitor visa fees, mandatory in-person interviews, and strict vetting policies that sometimes included social media account reviews. Even with the introduction of the FIFA Pass priority scheduling system, a visa did not guarantee border entry. Nearly 80 percent of hotels in US host cities missed their booking forecasts for June and July, ….
“The United States is the only place where tourism has been dropping. There are expected to be two million fewer visitors in 2026 than in 2025, down 10 million since the high water mark of 70 million in 2018. ….
“By comparison, travel to Canada from overseas countries increased by nearly 4 percent in July 2026, building on a 5.1 percent year-over-year increase recorded in June. ….
“American arrivals to Canada rose by over 9 percent in July compared to July 2025, despite high fuel and hotel prices. Even tourism in China is up by 20 percent, ….
“Perhaps the bleakest factoid is that the US is even less popular as a tourist destination than Nazi Germany in the 1930s.” (Emphasis Added)
Of much greater import for the long-term prospects of the U.S. are found in Item 2)., “Majority of Polled Scientists ….”, which notes that 75% of U.S. Scientists are considering, or have considered, leaving the U.S. This data was included in a Nature Poll published March 27, 2026, (“75% of US scientists who answered Nature poll consider leaving: More than 1,600 readers answered our poll; many said they were looking for jobs in Europe and Canada.” Mar 27, 2026, Alexandra Witze, Nature.) {I don't have access to Nature these days}. Item 2 notes that:
“In the poll, 75.3% of 1,600 respondents, at least 1,200 of whom were scientists, said they were 'considering leaving the country following the disruptions to science prompted by the Trump administration.'
“This is my home—I really love my country. But a lot of my mentors have been telling me to get out, right now,” one U.S. graduate student who lost her stipend when the Trump administration canceled funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told Nature. 'I’ve been looking very diligently for opportunities in Europe, Australia, and Mexico.' ” Emphasis added.
Item 3)., “Meet the researchers leaving the US ….”, includes profiles of a couple of young scientists who have already left the U.S. And Item 4). “Top researchers consider leaving ….” presents a 9 ½ minute discussion with a UCLA Mathematician who came here from Australia years ago and while politically neutral now feels that he needs to do something, either fight for better conditions here or go elsewhere.
Item 5). “Researchers warn U.S. is ….”, discusses the impending general degradation of the U.S. Scientific prowess and ability as young scientists leave and pursue their careers and research agendas elsewhere.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Who wants to visit an authoritarian America?
One of the peculiarities of being an American is the widespread national conviction that America is the best at everything.
This is particularly true of Republicans and MAGA, self-identified “real Americans” who consider anyone criticizing the US to be a commie traitor.
Trump takes this a step further by declaring anything he touches to be the biggest, best thing ever. He is convinced he has made America great again, and that the whole world now respects and fears the United States accordingly.
This is, of course, complete nonsense.
Since Trump has returned to office, global approval of the United States has plummeted. This is seen as far back as polling data from early 2025, and it’s likely much worse now.
When Pew Research asked people across 36 countries this spring if they trusted various world leaders to do the right thing, Trump was trusted least — less than Putin, Xi Jinping, and Netanyahu. Gallup found that world opinion of the United States has fallen to its lowest point in 20 years.
Ouch.
Many Americans still think that people must be drawn to this glorious shining city on a hill, and that no one who isn’t an aforementioned commie traitor would ever want to leave what is obviously the best country on earth.
Nope.
For the first time in 50 years, the US experienced negative net migration in 2025. The country isn’t letting much of anyone in, and record numbers of people are choosing to be somewhere else if they have the option (including myself and my family).
There are far more who would leave if the opportunity was there. Last year Gallup found that 20 percent of all Americans would move out of the US if they could, and 40 percent of young women would prefer to leave. A Williams Institute study found that 45 percent of transgender people would like to escape elsewhere, and 75 percent of scientists are considering leaving the United States. The situation is similar to how a lot of the people who built the atomic bomb weren’t from the US originally, because a certain guy with a mustache made it clear that their kind weren’t welcome in Germany anymore.
At the same time, polling shows that the percentage of people globally who would want to move to the US as their top choice has plummeted.
Americans are still broadly supportive of Republican “law and order” policies designed to sweep the streets of criminals, homeless people, addicts, and lesbian soccer moms. Many are surprised that foreigners don’t think that this has made America a safer and cleaner place to visit. Surely the presence of ICE, National Guard troops, and police authorized to use lethal force on a whim must make the US as safe and orderly as Singapore or Japan, right?
The actual data shows that the United States is on its way to being as unpopular a tourist destination as Russia, and for roughly the same reasons. In both countries, a tourist who runs afoul of government officials might spend the next six months in a freezing warehouse without legal counsel, eating moldy bologna sandwiches and praying that they won’t die of disease, neglect, or just an old-fashioned beating by the guards.
The US hosted this year’s FIFA World Cup, which happens only once every four years and involves the most popular sport in the world. Attendance at games was high, but it was driven primarily by domestic audiences. International travel to the United States fell far below expectations due to strict travel restrictions, high costs, visa hurdles, and visitors’ fear of dealing with Trump’s private anti-foreigner Sturmabteilung.
Applicants faced $185 visitor visa fees, mandatory in-person interviews, and strict vetting policies that sometimes included social media account reviews. Even with the introduction of the FIFA Pass priority scheduling system, a visa did not guarantee border entry. Nearly 80 percent of hotels in US host cities missed their booking forecasts for June and July, leading to room block cancellations and a broader decline in expected international arrivals.
The United States is the only place where tourism has been dropping. There are expected to be two million fewer visitors in 2026 than in 2025, down 10 million since the high water mark of 70 million in 2018. There was a 2 percent year-over-year drop in June, a 7 percent drop in July, and an 11 percent decrease in August. The numbers suggest that the collapse of the United States’ tourism industry is accelerating, thanks to Trump, MAGA, the GOP’s extreme xenophobia, and their belief that there’s no problem you can’t brutalize your way out of.
By comparison, travel to Canada from overseas countries increased by nearly 4 percent in July 2026, building on a 5.1 percent year-over-year increase recorded in June. And Americans, despite Trump’s insistence that Canada is the nastiest country on earth, are flocking to visit their more civilized northern neighbor. American arrivals to Canada rose by over 9 percent in July compared to July 2025, despite high fuel and hotel prices. Even tourism in China is up by 20 percent, despite the increasingly repressive regime of President Xi.
Less appealing than Berlin 1934
Perhaps the bleakest factoid is that the US is even less popular as a tourist destination than Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Hitler tried to depict Germany as clean, orderly, and safe, despite political repression, destruction of democracy, persecuting queers and Jews, and paramilitary beatings of “undesirables”.
According to the United States Holocaust Museum:
In 1933 alone, American embassies and consulates reported at least 36 individual physical attacks on American citizens in Germany. Uniformed Nazi brownshirts or German mobs beat Americans — tourists, businessmen, and expatriates living in Germany for work or marriage — or effectively kidnapped or arrested them. The attacks were almost all unprovoked or for such “offenses” as failing to salute the German flag, for taking photographs, or for failing to submit to extortion.
The US Consul General in Berlin, George Messersmith, and US Ambassador William E. Dodd aggressively protested these actions directly to Reich ministers and Chancellor Hitler. Because Germany was heavily reliant on foreign trade and tourism, Hitler personally assured Ambassador Dodd in October 1933 that “strong measures” would be taken to protect foreigners and that the police would intervene to prevent future attacks. To avoid violence, many shops in Germany began doing a brisk business selling lapel pins embossed with foreign flags to tourists, letting passersby know they were foreigners exempt from the rule requiring “roman salutes.”
Despite the beatings, campaigns in the United States contributed to a significant rise in international travel, including an alleged doubling of American tourists between 1934 and 1937. Foreign tourism grew steadily through the 1930s (including a major boost during the 1936 Berlin Olympics), convincing many international visitors that the regime was benign or even progressive.
The Nazi regime used the Reichsbahnzentrale für den Deutschen Reiseverkehr (RDV) (German Railroads Information Office) to market Germany globally as a modern, affordable, and cultural destination. By 1938, the RDV operated 31 offices across 26 countries. Promotional materials deliberately portrayed the country as peaceful, safe, and non-aggressive to mask or downplay the regime’s brutality and anti-Semitic policies.
Conversely, ICE’s brutal treatment of tourists and other foreigners traveling on visas (including Germans and Canadians) has elicited no response from the Trump administration. Diplomatic protests are ignored. Unlike the German example of tourists wearing pins to avoid a beating or detention in a concentration camp, wearing foreign flag pins in the US would invite such treatment, at least in some parts of the country.
Trump always wants to be seen as the biggest and best. He lies about everything, including his height and weight. He even strokes his ego by cheating at golf. But we’ll give him credit: only he could make his own country look like a less attractive place to visit than Nazi Germany.
Thanks for reading Public Notice. This post is public so feel free to share it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Majority of Polled Scientists Considering Leaving United States, Signaling “Brain Drain”
Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.
After an onslaught of funding cuts, firings, and cancelled programs as a result of Trump administration actions, scientists in the United States are feeling targeted. That’s according to the results of a poll published by Nature.
In the poll, 75.3% of 1,600 respondents, at least 1,200 of whom were scientists, said they were “considering leaving the country following the disruptions to science prompted by the Trump administration.”
“This is my home—I really love my country. But a lot of my mentors have been telling me to get out, right now,” one U.S. graduate student who lost her stipend when the Trump administration canceled funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told Nature. “I’ve been looking very diligently for opportunities in Europe, Australia, and Mexico.”
“The ‘brain drain’ is happening,” wrote Brian Romans, a geoscientist at Virginia Tech, on Bluesky.
The trend was especially strong among early-career scientists: 79.4% of postgraduate researchers who responded said they were considering leaving, as well as 75% of Ph.D. students. These groups are also feeling the brunt of funding changes that have affected undergraduate training programs and graduate admissions.
Losing scientists hinders the country’s ability to remain competitive in science, technology, engineering, and math, or STEM, fields on a global scale, according to a 2024 National Science Board report. The board pointed out that even before the Trump administration took office, the United States was at risk of struggling to retain talented scientists or attract researchers from abroad.
Universities in other countries are taking note: This month, a French university announced the Safe Place for Science, a three-year program meant to bring 15 American scientists to its campus.
—Grace van Deelen (@gvd.bsky.social), Staff Writer
These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.
Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.
Related
NSF Stops New and Existing Grants
The National Science Foundation (NSF), one of the world’s leading funders of basic research, will “stop awarding all funding actions,” including awarding new grants and disbursing funds for existing grants, according to Nature. Staff at NSF were told of the policy change in a 30 April email. The email did…
1,900 Scientists Warn of “Real Danger” in Open Letter
In an open letter to the American people, more than 1,900 scientists sent an “SOS” that the Trump administration’s actions have “decimated” the nation’s scientific enterprise and censored scientific work. “We see real danger in this moment,” the scientists wrote.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Meet the researchers leaving the US because of Trump's funding cuts and politicization of science
NEW YORK (AP) — Halley Froehlich was sure she’d spend her scientific career in the United States. Her family has been in America since the 1700s.
But over the past two years, delayed federal grants and fears about the future motivated her to pack her life into boxes. She moved to Finland with her husband and daughter and is continuing her research — studying how fish, shellfish and seaweed that humans eat are responding to climate change — at the University of Helsinki.
When the Trump administration began upending U.S. scientific research last year, dismantling the federal grant-giving process and attempting to exert more political influence over what projects get funded, foreign universities saw an opportunity. They adopted programs to lure U.S. researchers abroad, promising more stable streams of funding and academic freedom.
Since then, many have taken the bait. While there is no way to quantify the overall change across the nation, scientists, researchers and professional groups say the shift is clear, unprecedented and concerning.
“You can almost talk to any vice president for research at a university and they will tell you of one or two top faculty that they’ve lost,” said Tobin Smith, senior vice president of government relations and public policy for the Association of American Universities.
White House spokesperson Liz Huston said Trump is “ending waste” and is “committed to keeping America the world leader in scientific innovation, and that means funding real science.”
But more than half of American states have lost scientists to recruitment programs in other countries, according to an April report from the Business for Federal Research Funding Coalition. Last March, early-career biomedical scientists were about 20 percentage points less likely to say they would “now” stay in the U.S., compared to their recollection of how they felt six months earlier. And physics Ph.D. graduates in 2025 left the U.S. at the highest rate in 30 years, according to the American Institute of Physics.
Countries including Canada, France, Belgium and Finland are touting their recruits from U.S. institutions, a disturbing and surprising development, scientists say, for a country that far and away leads the world in Nobel prizes for medicine, physics and chemistry.
“It used to be the shining city on the hill where we all want to go,” said Christine Stawitz, now at the University of Birmingham in England. “That reputational loss, I think, is hard to quantify, but also really damaging.”
Some American scientists are moving abroad. Here’s why
Stawitz left her job at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last year to become a research software engineer in the United Kingdom. She said NOAA no longer aligned with her values, especially after she was asked to strip websites of references to climate change and diversity, equity and inclusion topics.
She says the upheaval in U.S. science is a common subject at scientific meetings. “People talk about the U.S. at conferences in the U.K. now like, I don’t know what’s going on there. It’s not good,” she said.
Froehlich’s decision to leave was a slow burn. She was already concerned about school safety and gun violence in the U.S. when the nation’s research landscape was overturned. Then, at the University of California, Santa Barbara, her colleagues’ grants kept getting postponed or canceled. Student researchers burst into her office in tears, unsure how to navigate their futures. She worried about future federal funding for her own research, which involves climate change.
“The cumulative effect of those things ultimately ended up making us really serious about, I don’t think here is our home anymore,” said Froehlich. She was recruited through an initiative by the Research Council of Finland and now has five years of guaranteed funding totaling about $3 million. She moved into a flat by the Baltic Sea in Helsinki and is taking Finnish lessons offered by the university.
And international scientists are leaving the US
International researchers who were drawn to the U.S. for its reputation as a global leader in science are also seeking different places to do their work.
Married biologists James Letts and Maria Maldonado were recruited to Australia’s Monash University and left behind their posts at the University of California, Davis. Letts is from Canada, and Maldonado from Argentina. Both got their doctoral degrees in New York and spent over a decade doing science in the U.S.
Grant-related uncertainty — including having to lay off a staff scientist while waiting for stalled funding — made them take the leap.
“All I want to do is do great science and make discoveries, but I want my work to mean something as well. And the opportunity to do that seemed very difficult in the U.S.,” Letts said.
Forty percent of the U.S. science Nobel Prizes were won by immigrants. Omar Yaghi, a 2025 Nobel Prize winner for chemistry, left his post at the University of California, Berkeley this year to direct an artificial intelligence lab at China’s Tsinghua University.
The consequences of losing scientific talent
The U.S. is still a science powerhouse, full of institutions around the country with robust research communities and well-resourced institutions that attract foreign scientists. Even if every European country threw open its doors, there still wouldn’t be enough capacity to accommodate every American scientist.
And not everyone is leaving. Many scientists are choosing to stay, searching for new sources of research funding or pivoting to jobs in industry.
But the erosion of reputation and the talent drain may not be over. The Trump administration has cut or frozen up to $174 billion in federal grants since the president’s second term began, according to a tracking tool released by the States United Democracy Center and the organization Grant Witness. And a proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget could give political appointees more control over what future projects are funded. A resolution approved by Congress has delayed a final decision on the rule until December.
Scientists who have moved away and those still in the U.S. are worried about what’s left behind. They say the next generation of scientists may struggle with fewer graduate programs, money and mentorship — and it could take a decade or longer for the U.S. scientific enterprise to truly feel those effects.
Major research institutions accepted 15% fewer applicants for fall 2026 doctoral programs compared to last year, according to admissions data collected by the Association of American Universities. One of the students impacted was a mentee of Smith’s.
“What is one of my pieces of advice to that young man? Next year, look in Canada,” he said.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Researchers warn U.S. is on the ‘precipice’ of brain drain as Trump cuts federal grants
Detecting tuberculosis can be tricky.
The time between getting infected and presenting with symptoms can span months or even years. To trace this contagious disease, Melanie Chitwood, a postdoctoral associate who studies the epidemiology of microbial diseases, worked with colleagues at Yale University to sequence the bacteria's genomic data, using that as a signal to detect transmission.
Generations ago, public health workers in the United States had snuffed out most tuberculosis transmission. To study this illness Chitwood's team collected samples for more than a decade from places where the disease is more common, including Moldova and Malawi. Their work has contributed to understanding how to get one step ahead of the disease.
But now, the federal grant funding that had supported Chitwood's yearslong research is gone.
Weeks after President Donald Trump's second inauguration, his administration began to cancel grants to reduce what it called "fraud, waste and abuse." Researchers who pursued anything that appeared to contradict his agenda in global health, race, gender identity, climate change and topics related to diversity, equity and inclusion saw their grants terminated.
READ MORE: What happens to health research when 'women' and 'diversity' are banned words?
Chitwood said "it's starting to feel like the walls are closing in" as opportunities to continue her research in the United States disappear. Like a growing number of scientists and experts, Chitwood is asking herself if she needs to pursue her research outside the country.
"It feels like I need to either change what I do or change where I do it," Chitwood said. "Neither of those options are pleasant."
The administration's cuts to federal funding and hiring freezes at colleges and universities come at a crucial time. While cures exist for tuberculosis, public health experts are concerned those tools could be losing their edge. Evidence shows the bacteria that causes the disease is increasingly resistant to antibiotics that were once effective treatments.
Cases of tuberculosis are reported occasionally in the U.S., where a century ago, it was a leading cause of death. For nearly three decades, the disease's prevalence has fallen, but that is changing. Last year, more than 10,000 U.S. cases of tuberculosis were confirmed, according to preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, marking an increase over recent years.
As U.S. funding dries up, some researchers told PBS News life-saving answers are at risk of slipping through their fingers.
Experts face a 'blitzkrieg against science'
Throughout history, intellectuals have found themselves considering whether to flee a hostile environment.
Before World War II, physicist Albert Einstein, mathematician Stanislaw Ulam and other scientists fled Europe to escape persecution and death during the Holocaust, finding refuge in the United States. Purges also consumed the educated class in the Soviet Union and Cambodia in the 20th century.
Once in the United States, the work of these refugees contributed to the nation's post-war prosperity and helped make it a global leader in innovation, said Robert N. Proctor, a science historian at Stanford University. U.S. investments in research, he said, are "really the seed corn of future knowledge."
Trump's targeting of intellectuals will disrupt more than grant cycles, Proctor added, upending scientific infrastructure that took decades to build only to usher in "the golden age of ignorance."
"It really is a blitzkrieg against science," he said.
So far this year, roughly 2,400 grants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have been terminated, according to Grant Watch, a project that has worked to chronicle the Trump administration's efforts to slash research funding. Some of the most common words in these terminated grants included "hiv," "biomedical," "risk" and "disparities."
A federal judge ruled Monday against some of the Trump administration's grant terminations, saying they are "void and illegal." U.S. District Judge William G. Young issued his decision after hearing arguments from two lawsuits filed against the Trump administration over its termination of hundreds of research grants on the ground that they promoted diversity, equity and inclusion, STAT News reported.
READ MORE: READ MORE: NIH scientists publish letter criticizing Trump's deep cuts in public health research
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said during his May 14 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, "We will fund cutting-edge research at the NIH while cutting risky or non-essential services." He added that the administration would "eliminate DEI funding and redirect resources toward real poverty reduction."
When Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., asked why the Trump administration had cut $18 billion from NIH, Kennedy repeatedly said that if Congress appropriated the funds for NIH, he would spend those funds that were required by law.
"We have!" DeLauro shot back.
Since Trump's second term began, some widely respected scholars have left the U.S., including philosopher and fascism expert Jason Stanley from Yale University. Many more are considering leaving, according to a March 27 survey published in the journal Nature. Among more than 1,600 U.S. scientists, three-quarters said they have thought about leaving the country. Many said they were looking at Europe and Canada.
In school, Chitwood had learned about Europe's World War II-era "brain drain," including the downstream effects of those losses, such as less innovation in medical care.
"There are real and lasting consequences here," she said. "We're standing on the precipice of that."
Other nations are capitalizing on U.S. loss
While the U.S. is pulling back on its investments in innovation and research, other nations are eager to gain advantages through attracting a highly skilled workforce.
The European Union announced the Choose Europe for Science initiative last month, devoting 500 million euros in grant funding to attract American scientists and scholars to Europe, where they can continue their research unfettered by political agendas. This expanded on a program established in 2017 by French President Emmanuel Macron during the first Trump administration.
"This is a call to all free minds who want to advance science and stand up for a certain model of society," Macron said at the May 5 announcement of the initiative at the Sorbonne University in Paris.
The uncertainty that these cuts generate is devastating for young people on the cusp of starting their careers in research, Proctor said. Many "idealistic people who want to change the world" will be driven to the private sector, he added.
David Paltiel, a professor of public health at Yale University, said he is near the end of his career and can fall back on savings if he needs to.
"I will be able to weather the storm," he said. "I'm much more concerned about junior faculty who are just getting started."
Chitwood never planned on leaving New England. Born and raised in Rhode Island, she said the family of her husband, a physician, lives in Boston. In the last year, they had been talking about buying a house, starting a family of their own and living close enough so grandparent visits would be easy and frequent. Those plans are now frozen as Chitwood and her husband work to figure out if they must uproot their lives and start again elsewhere.
"If the goal is to root out anyone who thinks that diversity is good, that equity is good, that we should fight injustice, then what do I do?" she said.
Maybe Canada is her next step. Or the Netherlands. Chitwood knows her work still matters and that it holds the power to help improve the health of people around the world, no matter where she lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment