By LUIS ANDRES HENAO, Associated Press

Christmas is a Christian holiday that observes the birth of Jesus. But did you know that the earliest followers of Jesus did not annually commemorate his birth? Or that Santa Claus is inspired by the acts of kindness of a fourth-century Christian saint? And have you heard about the modern-day Japanese tradition of eating Kentucky Fried Chicken on Christmas?

Since the early 20th century, Christmas has evolved from a religious holiday to a hugely popular cultural holiday observed by Christian and secular people across the globe who gather with families, exchange gifts and cards and decorate Christmas trees.

Here’s a look at the history, beliefs and the evolution of Christmas:

Origins and early history of Christmas

Early followers of Jesus did not annually commemorate his birth but instead focused on commemorating their belief in his resurrection at Easter.

The story of the birth of Jesus appears only in two of the four Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew and Luke. They provide different details, though both say Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

The exact day, month and even year of Jesus’s birth are unknown, said Christine Shepardson, a professor at the University of Tennessee who studies early Christianity.

The tradition of celebrating Jesus’ birth on Dec. 25, she said, only emerged in the fourth century.

“It’s hard to overemphasize how important the fourth century is for constructing Christianity as we experience it in our world today,” Shepardson said. It was then, under Emperor Constantine, that Christians began the practice of gathering at churches instead of meeting at homes.

Some theories say the date coincides with existing pagan winter solstice festivals, including the Roman celebration of Sol Invictus, or the “Unconquered Sun,” on Dec 25.

While most Christians celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25, some Eastern Orthodox traditions celebrate the holy day on Jan. 7. That’s because they follow the ancient Julian calendar, which runs 13 days behind the Gregorian calendar, used by Catholic and Protestant churches as well as by much of the secular world.

Rowdy medieval celebrations

For centuries, especially during the Middle Ages, Christmas was associated with rowdy street celebrations of feasting and drinking, and for many Christians, it “was not in good standing as a holiday,” said Thomas Ruys Smith, a professor of American literature and culture at the University of East Anglia in England.

“Puritans,” he said, “were not fond of Christmas.”

But in the 19th century, he said, Christmas became “respectable” with “the domestic celebration that we understand today — one centered around the home, the family, children, gift-giving.”

The roots of modern-day Christmas can be traced back to Germany. In the late 19th century, there are accounts of Christmas trees and gift-giving that, according to Smith, later spread to Britain and America, helping to revitalize Christmas on both sides of the Atlantic.

FILE – Decked in a Santa outfit and holiday lights, a child bolts from the starting line of the annual Christmas run in Vilnius, Lithuania, Saturday, Dec. 6, 2025. (AP Photo/Mindaugas Kulbis, File)

Christmas became further popularized with the publication of “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens in 1843, and the writings of Washington Irving, who was a fan of St. Nicholas and helped popularize the celebration of Christmas in America.

The first Rockefeller Center Christmas tree was put up by workers in 1931 to raise spirits during the Great Depression. The tradition stuck as the first tree-lighting ceremony was held in 1933 and remains one of New York City’s most popular holiday attractions.

America’s secular Santa is inspired by a Christian saint

St. Nicholas was a fourth-century Christian bishop from the Mediterranean port city of Myra (in modern-day Turkey). His acts of generosity inspired the secular Santa Claus legend.

The legends surrounding jolly old St. Nicholas — celebrated annually on Dec. 6 — go way beyond delivering candy and toys to children. He is believed to have interceded on behalf of wrongly condemned prisoners and miraculously saved sailors from storms.

FILE – A Nativity scene is illuminated by a Christmas tree on Payrow Plaza in Bethlehem, Pa., known as “Christmas City, USA,” on Sunday, Dec. 1, 2024. (AP Photo/Luis Andres Henao, File)

Devotion to St. Nicholas spread during the Middle Ages across Europe and he became a favorite subject for medieval artists and liturgical plays. He is the patron saint of sailors and children, as well as of Greece, Russia and New York.

Devotion to St. Nicholas seems to have faded after the 16th century Protestant Reformation, except in the Netherlands, where his legend remained as Sinterklaas. In the 17th century, Dutch Protestants who settled in New York brought the Sinterklaas tradition with them.

Eventually, St. Nicholas morphed into the secular Santa Claus.

It’s not just Santa who delivers the gifts

In the U.K., it’s Father Christmas; in Greece and Cyprus, St. Basil (who arrives on New Year’s Eve). In some parts of Italy, it’s St. Lucy (earlier in December) and in other Italian regions, Befana, a witch-like figure, who brings presents on the Epiphany on Jan. 6.

Instead of a friendly Santa Claus, children in Iceland enjoy favors from 13 mischievous troll brothers, called the Yule Lads. They come down from their mountain cave 13 days before Christmas, according to folklore.

Christian traditions of Christmas

One of the oldest traditions around Christmas is bringing greenery — holly, ivy or evergreen trees — into homes. But determining whether it’s a Christian tradition is harder. “For many people, the evergreen can symbolize Christ’s promise of eternal life and his return from death,” Smith said. “So, you can interpret that evergreen tradition within the Christian concept.”

FILE – Katherine McPhee and David Foster perform during the 90th annual Rockefeller Center Christmas tree lighting ceremony, Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2022, in New York. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson, File)

The decorating of evergreen trees is a German custom that began in the 16th century, said Maria Kennedy, a professor at Rutgers University—New Brunswick’s  Department of American Studies. It was later popularized in England and America.

“Mistletoe, an evergreen shrub, was used in celebrations dating back to the ancient Druids — Celtic religious leaders — some 2,000 years ago,” Kennedy writes in The Surprising History of Christmas Traditions.

Related Articles

Today in History: December 24, Alan Turing granted posthumous pardon

US bars five Europeans who allegedly pressured tech firms to censor American viewpoints online

UK authorities bring new charges of rape and sexual assault against Russell Brand

Louvre tightens security after $102M jewel heist, installs bars on infamous window

Greta Thunberg arrested in London while supporting hunger-striking pro-Palestinian activists

“Mistletoe represented immortality because it continued to grow in the darkest time of the year and bore white berries when everything else had died.”

Other traditions include Christmas services and Nativity scenes at homes and churches. More recently, Nativity scenes — when erected on public property in the U.S. — have triggered legal battles over the question of the separation of church and state.

Christmas caroling, Kennedy writes, can also be traced back to European traditions, where people would go from home to home during the darkest time of the year to renew relationships within their communities and give wishes for good luck, health and wealth for the forthcoming year.

“They would recite poetry, sing and sometimes perform a skit. The idea was that these acts would bring about good fortune to influence a future harvest,” Kennedy writes.

Kentucky Fried Chicken for Christmas in Japan

Among the many Christmas traditions that have been adopted and localized globally, there’s one that involves KFC.

In 1974, KFC launched a Christmas campaign where they began to sell fried chicken with a bottle of wine so it could be used for a Christmas party.

KFC says the idea for the campaign came from an employee who overheard a foreign customer at one of its Tokyo restaurants saying that since he couldn’t get turkey in Japan, he’d have to celebrate Christmas with Kentucky Fried Chicken.

“That really stuck,” Smith said. “And still today, you have to order your KFC months in advance to make sure that you’re going to get it at Christmas Day.”

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

This will go down as the year when the president of the United States openly went to war against the rule of law. I’ve been writing about the many battles of this war throughout 2025.

In this column, I’m going to zoom out and take a broad view of the overall state of the battlefield, with special attention to the main combatants defending the law: the lower federal courts, which are the frontline troops; and the Supreme Court justices, who serve as the generals of the joint chiefs of staff.

The first thing to understand about the conflict is that President Donald Trump’s primary weapon is unilateral executive action. He started issuing executive orders that violate constitutional and legal norms on day one of his administration.

Through the shock troops of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the president indiscriminately fired federal employees, shut down entire departments created by Congress, and canceled billions of dollars in federal contracts and grants allocated by law. Through the Department of Justice as well as other cabinet departments and commissions, he has targeted the speech rights of anyone who disagrees with him.

You’ll notice that Congress is nowhere in this attack strategy. Its unwillingness or inability to act in the face of the offensive brings home, more powerfully than anything else, just how much this branch of government has withered away in recent decades. I’m not going to speak much more about Congress in this column — because, rather than being a participant in the war, Congress is effectively an irrelevant bystander.

Another striking aspect of the president’s war is who the immediate victims have been. First, there are immigrants — both visa holders and those who are undocumented — who are among the most vulnerable people in the U.S., legally and practically. At the other end of the spectrum are elite institutions like universities and law firms. This target selection reflects the president’s apparent objective of creating maximum publicity for his effort to break the legal order.

The most vulnerable can’t do much about it. The powerful can choose between trying to reach compromises with the president or deploying legal tools. If they choose the former path, they strengthen Trump by bending the knee. If they choose the latter, they create more attention for him. Either way, he can claim victory.

The possibility of legal defense brings us to the federal district courts. Thus far, they are the heroes of the effort to defend the Constitution. On hundreds of occasions, the lower courts have stood up to unlawful executive action by issuing orders that apply existing law and freeze the administration’s executive actions. Judges like U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg in Washington, DC, have gone even further, demanding accountability for the administration’s violation of court orders.

This resistance is not only admirable but risky. If the Trump administration decides to openly defy court orders, it could trigger a constitutional crisis. And depending on the specific factual circumstances, there is no guarantee that the courts would win. Yet avoiding such a crisis is arguably not the job of the lower federal courts, which are supposed to follow the law regardless. It’s the responsibility of the justices of the Supreme Court, especially Chief Justice John Roberts.

Let me say this bluntly: The generals are not doing a good job of conducting the war to defend the rule of law. Where Trump is unrelenting and single-minded, the justices have been inconsistent and unpredictable, and therefore appear irresolute. They have used their emergency docket — which allows them to address urgent requests without the usual full briefings and oral arguments —  to an unprecedented degree, not to defend the rule of law against executive overreach, but to undermine the lower courts’ efforts by reversing orders restraining the administration.

Not content to weaken their frontline troops, some of the justices have made the disastrous decision to publicly rebuke them for failing to interpret what the Supreme Court means by its unsigned, minimally reasoned emergency decisions. This is not simply bad for morale — a serious enough problem. It is also an invitation to the enemy, namely the president, to continue the tactic of condemning federal judges as lawless. In effect, by criticizing the lower courts, a handful of Supreme Court justices are coming dangerously close to betraying, rather than protecting, the rule of law.

Worse, the conservative justices of the Supreme Court appear not to realize that, in a war, internal disagreements and ideological agendas must be set aside in the service of unity in the struggle. The main problem here is the conservative constitutional theory of the unitary executive, which holds that the president must have near-absolute control over everyone who works in the executive branch.

The conservatives have been pushing the unitary executive agenda for decades. During that time, the theory was wrong, but arguably not disastrous in its practical consequences. Now, with a president who cares nothing for existing rules and seeks total control over not just the executive branch but the entire government, the theory of the unitary executive has become uniquely dangerous.

It’s one thing to say that a president should be able to fire the head of a newly created agency like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as the court held a few years back. It’s a very different thing to empower Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission commissioners, who oversee mergers and acquisitions. The latter would give the president nearly unfettered authority to intervene personally in significant financial transactions for the benefit of his friends and allies.

Consider that, when Netflix announced a deal to buy Warner Bros., speculation ran high that Trump’s appointees on the formerly independent government commissions might block the deal to revive Paramount’s takeover bid, which is controlled by the Ellison family — close Trump allies. This form of corruption is only possible in a world where the president controls independent agencies. It is painfully evident that this is the wrong moment for the Supreme Court to announce a new doctrine granting the president inherent authority to fire the commission members who make these decisions. Yet the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, seems not to care.

To be sure, the justices are not giving Trump total carte blanche. They have upheld a few lower court injunctions — though they have not explained their reasoning in those cases any more clearly than they have when they’ve reversed the lower courts. And based on the oral argument, it appears more likely than not that the justices will strike down Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Doing so would certainly count as a counterattack against the president’s lawlessness. Still, it would serve the interests of business rather than those of, say, vulnerable immigrants — a distinction sure to be noticed by the president and everyone else.

Probably the most disheartening aspect of the Supreme Court generals’ weakness has been the cavalier way they ruled in one of the leading cases involving immigration. Allowing agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to grab people on America’s streets based on their appearance and the fact that they might be speaking Spanish is the kind of historically disastrous decision that will delegitimize the court for a generation.

It may well end up on a par with the court’s decision to bless the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII — an act that, it’s fair to say, the court has not lived down more than 80 years later. That the court did this in an unsigned order tells you all you need to know about the justices’ failure of leadership.

Things could get better in the new year. The justices will have the opportunity to issue actual opinions in fully argued cases involving important Trump policies. If they get those right, they might begin rallying the troops for a serious stand in support of the principle of legality.

To do so, however, would take an act of genuine will — the will necessary to win wars. Right now, the reason the war has not yet been lost is that the district court frontline troops are committed, brave and capable. It’s time for the justice-generals to do their job, too.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A professor of law at Harvard University, he is author, most recently, of “To Be a Jew Today: A New Guide to God, Israel, and the Jewish People.”

Related Articles

Thomas Black: A dress code won’t make flyers behave, but a $44,000 fine will

Parmy Olson: AI is getting dangerously good at political persuasion

Lisa Jarvis: Fighting dementia could be as easy as the shingles vaccine

Matt K. Lewis: The Democrats are already blowing up their chances in the Senate

Bruce Yandle: America chugs along in a ‘K-shaped’ economy

By SAMYA KULLAB, Associated Press

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — The United States and Ukraine have reached a consensus on several critical issues aimed at bringing an end to the nearly four-year conflict, but sensitive issues around territorial control in Ukraine’s eastern industrial heartland, along with the management of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, remain unresolved, Ukraine’s president said.

Related Articles

EU warns of possible action after the US bars 5 Europeans accused of censorship

More than a third of states sue HHS over a move that could curtail youth gender-affirming care

Trump approves deployment of 350 National Guard members to New Orleans

Nvidia gains, hospitals hurt: Congress winners and losers

Trump administration moves to overhaul how H-1B visas are granted, ending lottery system

Volodymyr Zelenskyy briefed journalists on each point of the plan on Tuesday. His comments were embargoed until Wednesday morning. The draft proposal, which reflects Ukraine’s wishes, intertwines political and commercial interests to safeguard security while boosting economic potential.

Asked about the plan, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow would set out its position based on information received by Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who met with U.S. envoys in Florida over the weekend.

Peskov declined to share further details, saying that Moscow believed it was “highly inappropriate to conduct any kind of communication via the media.”

At the heart of the negotiations lies the contentious territorial dispute concerning the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, known as the Donbas. This is “the most difficult point,” Zelenskyy said. He said these matters will be discussed at the leaders level.

Russia continues to assert maximalist demands, insisting that Ukraine relinquish the remaining territory in Donbas that it has not captured — an ultimatum that Ukraine has rejected. Russia has captured most of Luhansk and about 70% of Donetsk.

In a bid to facilitate compromise, the United States has proposed transforming these areas into free economic zones. Ukraine insists that any arrangement must be contingent upon a referendum, allowing the Ukrainian people to determine their own fate. Ukraine is demanding the demilitarization of the area and the presence of an international force to ensure stability, Zelenskyy said.

How the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest plant in Europe which is under Russian occupation, will be managed is another contentious issue. The U.S. is proposing a consortium with Ukraine and Russia, with each party having an equal stake in the enterprise.

But Zelenskyy countered with a joint venture proposal between the U.S. and Ukraine, in which the Americans are able to decide how to distribute their share, presuming it would go to Russia.

“We did not reach a consensus with the American side on the territory of the Donetsk region and on the ZNPP,” Zelenskyy said, referring to the power plant in Zaporizhzhia. “But we have significantly brought most of the positions closer together. In principle, all other consensus in this agreement has been found between us and them.”

A free economic zone compromise

Point 14, which covers territories that cut across the eastern front line, and Point 12, which discusses management of the Zaporizhzhia plant, will likely be major sticking points in the talks.

Zelenskyy said: “We are in a situation where the Russians want us to leave the Donetsk region, and the Americans are trying to find a way so that it is ‘not a way out’ — because we are against leaving — they want to find a demilitarized zone or a free economic zone in this, that is, a format that can provide for the views of both sides.”

The draft states that the contact line, which cuts across five Ukrainian regions, be frozen once the agreement is signed.

Ukraine’s stance is that any attempt to create a free economic zone must be ratified by a referendum, affirming that the Ukrainian people ultimately hold the decision-making power, Zelenskyy said. This process will require 60 days, he added, during which time hostilities should stop to allow the process to happen.

More difficult discussions would require hammering out how far troops would be required to move back, per Ukraine’s proposal, and where international forces would be stationed. Zelenskyy said ultimately “people can choose: this ending suits us or not,” he said.

The draft also proposes that Russian forces withdraw from Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Sumy, Kharkiv regions, and that international forces be located along the contact line to monitor the implementation of the agreement.

“Since there is no faith in the Russians, and they have repeatedly broken their promises, today’s contact line is turning into a line of a de facto free economic zone, and international forces should be there to guarantee that no one will enter there under any guise — neither ‘little green men’ nor Russian military disguised as civilians,” Zelenskyy said.

Managing Zaporizhzhia power plant

Ukraine is also proposing that the occupied city of Enerhodar, which is connected to the Zaporizhzhia power plant, be a demilitarized free economic zone, Zelenskyy said. This point required 15 hours of discussions with the U.S., he said.

For now, the U.S. proposes that the plant be jointly operated by Ukraine, the U.S. and Russia, with each side receiving dividends from the enterprise.

“The USA is offering 33% for 33%f or 33%, and the Americans are the main manager of this joint venture,” he said. “It is clear that for Ukraine this sounds very unsuccessful and not entirely realistic. How can you have joint commerce with the Russians after everything?”

Ukraine offered an alternative proposal, that the plant be operated by a joint venture with the U.S. in which the Americans can determine independently how to distribute their 50% share.

Zelenskyy said billions in investments are needed to make the plant run again, including restoring the adjacent dam.

“There were about 15 hours of conversations about the plant. These are all very complex things.”

A separate annex for security guarantees

The document ensures that Ukraine will be provided with “strong” security guarantees that mirror NATO’s Article 5, which would obligate Ukraine’s partners to act in the event of renewed Russian aggression.

Zelenskyy said that a separate bilateral document with the U.S. will outline these guarantees. This agreement will detail the conditions under which security will be provided, particularly in the event of a renewed Russian assault, and will establish a mechanism to monitor the ceasefire.

This mechanism will utilize satellite technology and early warning systems to ensure effective oversight and rapid response capabilities.

“The mood of the United States of America is that this is an unprecedented step towards Ukraine on their part. They believe that they are giving strong security guarantees,” he said.

The draft contains other elements including keeping Ukraine’s army at 800,000 during peace time, and by nailing down a specific date for ascension to the European Union.

Elections and boosting the economy

The document proposes accelerating a free trade agreement between Ukraine and the U.S. once the agreement is signed. The U.S. wants the same deal with Russia, said Zelenskyy.

Ukraine would like to receive short-term privileged access to the European market and a robust global development package, that will cover a wide-range of economic interests, including a development fund to invest in industries including technology, data centers and artificial intelligence, as well as gas.

Also included are funds for the reconstruction of territories destroyed in the war.

“Ukraine will have the opportunity to determine the priorities for distributing its share of funds in the territories under the control of Ukraine. And this is a very important point, on which we spent a lot of time,” Zelenskyy said.

The goal will be to attract $800 billion through equity, grants, loans and private sector contributions.

The draft proposal also requires Ukraine to hold elections after the signing of the agreement. “This is the partners’ vision,” Zelenskyy said.

Ukraine is also asking that all prisoners since 2014 be released at once, and that civilian detainees, political prisoners and children be returned to Ukraine.

By LORNE COOK, Associated Press

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union’s executive on Wednesday warned that it would take action against any “unjustified measures” after the U.S. State Department barred five Europeans it accuses of pressuring U.S. technology firms to censor or suppress American viewpoints.

Related Articles

US and Ukraine reach consensus on key issues aimed at ending the war but territorial disputes remain

More than a third of states sue HHS over a move that could curtail youth gender-affirming care

Trump approves deployment of 350 National Guard members to New Orleans

Nvidia gains, hospitals hurt: Congress winners and losers

Trump administration moves to overhaul how H-1B visas are granted, ending lottery system

The Europeans were characterized by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio as “radical” activists and “weaponized” nongovernmental organizations. They include the former EU commissioner responsible for supervising social media rules, Thierry Breton.

Breton, a businessman and former French finance minister, clashed last year on social media with tech billionaire Elon Musk over broadcasting an online interview with Donald Trump in the months leading up to the U.S. election.

The European Commission, the EU’s powerful executive branch and which supervises tech regulation in Europe, said that it “strongly condemns the U.S. decision to impose travel restrictions” and that it has requested clarification about the move. French President Emmanuel Macron also condemned it.

“If needed, we will respond swiftly and decisively to defend our regulatory autonomy against unjustified measures,” the commission said in a statement, without elaborating.

Rubio wrote in an X post on Tuesday that “for far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose.”

“The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship,” he posted.

The European Commission countered that “the EU is an open, rules-based single market, with the sovereign right to regulate economic activity in line with our democratic values and international commitments.”

“Our digital rules ensure a safe, fair, and level playing field for all companies, applied fairly and without discrimination,” it said.

Macron said that the visa restrictions “amount to intimidation and coercion aimed at undermining European digital sovereignty,” he posted on X.

Macron said that the EU’s digital rules were adopted by “a democratic and sovereign process” involving all member countries and the European Parliament. He said that the rules “ensure fair competition among platforms, without targeting any third country.”

He underlined that “the rules governing the European Union’s digital space are not meant to be determined outside Europe.”

Breton and the group of Europeans fell afoul of a new visa policy announced in May to restrict the entry of foreigners deemed responsible for censorship of protected speech in the United States.

The four others are: Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate; Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, leaders of HateAid, a German organization; and Clare Melford, who runs the Global Disinformation Index.

Rubio said the five had advanced foreign government censorship campaigns against Americans and U.S. companies, which he said created “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the United States.

The action to bar them from the U.S. is part of a Trump administration campaign against foreign influence over online speech, using immigration law rather than platform regulations or penalties.

In a post on X on Tuesday, Sarah Rogers, the U.S. under secretary of state for public diplomacy, called Breton the “mastermind” behind the EU’s Digital Services Act, which imposes a set of strict requirements designed to keep internet users safe online. This includes flagging harmful or illegal content like hate speech.

Breton responded on X by noting that all 27 EU member countries voted for the Digital Services Act in 2022. “To our American friends: ‘Censorship isn’t where you think it is,’” he wrote.

Angela Charlton contributed to this report from Paris.