The government of Taiwan confirmed this week that it had ordered three Chinese women to leave the country – one by Tuesday, the other two by the end of March – on the grounds that they had used social media to spread violent Chinese propaganda.
The post Taiwan Expels Chinese Influencers Accused of Calling for Invasion appeared first on Breitbart .
Fox News’ Jesse Watters suggested that The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg might have snuck his way into a group chat in which high-ranking Trump administration officials discussed plans to strike Houthi rebel targets in Yemen on Tuesday night.
On Monday, Goldberg revealed that National Security Adviser Mike Waltz had — seemingly inadvertently — added Goldberg to a Signal group chat in which the discussion took place. Other members of the group included Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Vice President JD Vance.
Waltz took to Fox News on Tuesday night , where he asked Laura Ingraham “Have you ever had somebody’s contact that shows their name, and then you have somebody else’s number there?”
“Oh, I never make those mistakes,” Ingraham said sarcastically.
“Right? You’ve got somebody else’s number on someone else’s contact. So, of course, I didn’t see this loser [Goldberg] in the group. It looked like someone else,” said Waltz. “Now, whether he did it deliberately, or it happened in some other technical mean is something we’re trying to figure out.”
On his show, Watters played the clip before weighing in himself:
Journalists like Goldberg will sometimes send out fake names with a contact with their cells to deceive politicians. Waltz says Elon [Musk] and Big Balls are on the case. This wouldn’t surprise me if Goldberg sneaked his way in — he’s the lowest of the low. This is the guy who reported that Trump didn’t wanna pay for a Gold Star funeral. Remember he said it doesn’t cost 60K to bury an effing Mexican, total lie. Goldberg’s the guy who said that Trump called American soldiers suckers and losers, lie. This guy’s fine people, pee tape, can’t trust him. Goldberg held this bombshell for a week, and then dropped it the night before half the group chat was set up to testify on Capitol Hill.
Watch above via Fox News.
The post Fox News’ Jesse Watters Suggests ‘Lowest of the Low’ Jeffrey Goldberg Might Have ‘Sneaked’ Into War Plans Groupchat With Unethical Ruse first appeared on Mediaite .
Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson said Tuesday that the left’s obsessive behaviors are self-destructive and “killing their own party.”
In a speech at the Human Rights Campaign on Monday night, Democratic Texas Representative Jasmine Crockett called Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott , who uses a wheelchair, as “Governor Hot Wheels” and described him as a “hot a** mess.” During an appearance on “Rob Schmitt Tonight,” Hanson said the Democratic Party’s political rhetoric against Trump exacerbates political divisions and diminishes the opposition’s credibility.
“They’re on the side of pro-HAMAS, pro-terror supporters. They’re on the side of gang members. They’re on the side of terrorist-designated organizations. You’ve got Jasmine Crockett threatening bodily harm to Ted Cruz. Now she’s calling the governor of Texas ‘Hot Wheels’ who’s disabled,” Hanson said.
Hanson cited the low approval ratings of these strategies and likened them to an addiction that damages rather than benefits the party employing them.
WATCH:
“They’re almost like an addict. They know that what they’re doing is a fixation and it’s killing their party. It’s down at about 27% approval, and, yet, like every addict, they have to have their fix, and they can’t stop even though they know it’s killing them,” Hanson added.
Hanson also criticized the continuous legal actions that he said are designed more to delay than to deliver substantive outcomes.
“I think they feel that by the time this gets to the appellate district federal courts, and then up to the Supreme Court, then they have succeeded in their strategies,” Hanson said. “And it’s part of a larger effort. The street violence we see, the smutty videos we see, all of it is designed to delay, delay, delay, and Donald Trump is not going to have a third term. So they understand that.”
Hanson also criticized the opposition for not engaging in more constructive political efforts, such as addressing significant national debt or immigration challenges.
“What they’re not doing, as you know, is they’re not saying to him, let’s work to get rid of the $3 billion in interest per day, or let’s work together and see if we can find the 12 million people that we let in the last four years,” Hanson said. “It’s street theater. It’s delay. It’s lawfare. It’s sort of also the administration counterpart of what we saw for four years with Letitia James, Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith, Eugene Carroll.”
Upon assuming the presidency on Jan. 20, Trump quickly enacted executive orders to limit illegal immigration and designated Mexican drug cartels, TdA, and MS-13 as foreign terrorist organizations. In response, Democratic states and unions filed numerous lawsuits, prompting Republican legislators to propose new laws that would restrict district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions on these executive actions.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Via the AP: EPA head says he’ll roll back dozens of environmental regulations, including rules on climate change .
“We are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion and ushering in America’s Golden Age,’’ EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in an essay in The Wall Street Journal.
A grand irony here is that what we know about climate change is based in scientific inquiry, while the whole
“Golden Age” stuff is as fantastically faith-based as it gets.
None of the changes take effect immediately, and nearly all will require a long rulemaking process. Environmental groups vowed to oppose the actions, which one said would result in “the greatest increase in pollution in decades’’ in the U.S.
Part of me thinks it is quaint that the reporter thinks this will be be done through a deliberate process, and part of me hopes that is true.
I will agree that regulatory reform, properly pursued, it a reasonable goal. Likewise, I am not surprised that a Republican administration would be less in favor of environmental regulation. However, this is blatantly irresponsible and clearly undercuts the EPA’s mission.
Note the following contrast from the NYT write-up .
The E.P.A. has “no obligation to promote agriculture or commerce; only the critical obligation to protect and enhance the environment,” the first administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, said as he explained its mission to the country weeks after the E.P.A. was created by President Richard M. Nixon. He said the agency would be focused on research, standards and enforcement in five areas: air pollution, water pollution, waste disposal, radiation and pesticides.
Mr. Zeldin said the E.P.A. would unwind more than two dozen protections against air and water pollution. It would overturn limits on soot from smokestacks that have been linked to respiratory problems in humans and premature deaths as well as restrictions on emissions of mercury, a neurotoxin. It would get rid of the “good neighbor rule” that requires states to address their own pollution when it’s carried by winds into neighboring states. And it would eliminate enforcement efforts that prioritize the protection of poor and minority communities.
In addition, when the agency creates environmental policy, it would no longer consider the costs to society from wildfires, droughts, storms and other disasters that might be made worse by pollution connected to that policy, Mr. Zeldin said.
In perhaps its most consequential act, the agency said it would work to erase the E.P.A.’s legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by reconsidering decades of science that show global warming is endangering humanity. In his video, Mr. Zeldin derisively referred to that legal underpinning as “the holy grail of the climate change religion.”
Mr. Zeldin called Wednesday’s actions “the largest deregulatory announcement in U.S. history.” He added, “today the green new scam ends, as the E.P.A. does its part to usher in a golden age of American success.”
It is also another example of how tearing things down is far easier than building them back up will be. And, worse, this is another situation in which there will be long-term consequences that will take years and years to repair.
Not to get too simplisitc, but I have lived in two places in my life wherein emissions visibly created substantial air pollution: Southern California and Bogotá, Colombia. In both cases, I also witnessed how environmental regulations substantially improved air quality. In both cases, it took years and a lot of deliberate action by government. All the economic incentives were to continue to pollute. As such, I am always a bit skeptical when told that there is a cost-free way to roll back such regulations.
But, hey, I am sure more mercury, soot, and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be fine and dandy!
‘It’s a travesty’
Evyatar David, a music lover who dreams of working in the industry, is languishing in a Hamas tunnel , according to his brother, Ilay David.
In a recent conversation with Fox News Digital, Ilay warned that his brother and all the hostages are running out of time.
“Every week we used to play music together. That’s what I miss the most,” Ilay told Fox News Digital. He has been fighting for Evyatar’s release since Oct. 7, 2023. Ilay described his brother as “the kindest soul I know.”
On Oct. 7, 2023, Evyatar was at the Nova music festival with three other friends when Hamas’ attacks began. Two of Evyatar’s friends did not survive the attacks, while he and his best friend, Guy Gilboa-Dalal , were taken hostage.
TRUMP’S DOJ CRACKS DOWN ON HAMAS WITH NEW TASK FORCE
Like many other hostage families, Evyatar’s family set up a website to tell the world who he is and why securing his freedom is so crucial. On the website, his family laments that his “vibrant life” was forever changed. There are also videos showcasing Evyatar’s guitar skills .
In February, the David family received a sign of life that Ilay described as being “shocking and amazing and frightening.” Evyatar and Guy were forced to participate in a Hamas propaganda film, a practice the terror group has employed throughout the war. In the video, the two men in their 20s appear frail and tired as they beg for their lives while being forced to watch a hostage release ceremony in Gaza.
“When it was finished, I could breathe,” Ilay told Fox News Digital as he recalled watching the film for the first time. “I saw them alive. I saw that they are together.”
Ilay’s relief washed away when he watched the video a second time.
“I saw how starved they are. They are half the men they used to be. And you could see in their eyes that they are exhausted, and they are begging for their lives,” Ilay told Fox News Digital. “They are broken, both of them, broken men.”
“They saw freedom, and they shut the door in their faces. And they threw them back into the tunnels. And that’s cruelty.”
Ilay’s concerns about his brother have only grown since former hostages who were held with Evyatar detailed the conditions in which they were held. He told Fox News Digital that the former hostages said the two men have been underground in the tunnels for most of their captivity and were only able to see sunlight when they were taken to the ceremony. As is the case with most hostages, Evyatar and Guy are given very little to eat and have limited access to water.
“But it’s only a matter of time until — I don’t know — one of the terrorists would just… be angry or upset. So, he will decide that he wants to execute, execute Evyatar or Guy. And I don’t want to think about it, but it happened already,” Ilay told Fox News Digital, likely referring to the six hostages who were shot dead in late August 2024, just before Israeli troops were able to reach them.
Ilay told Fox News Digital he has done everything possible to tell his brother’s story and to make him “visible,” including going to Washington, D.C., to meet with American lawmakers. He believes President Donald Trump has a “very big role” to play in securing the release of Evyatar and the remaining hostages.
“[Trump], no kidding, may be sent by God to save these people,” Ilay said. He cited the release of 33 hostages over the course of the ceasefire deal that only recently fell apart, and said that if it weren’t for Trump, those people would still be in Gaza.
Ilay told Fox News Digital that, in his eyes, the atrocities of Oct. 7 have not ended — they are still happening for the people held by Hamas in Gaza.
After initially signaling that Democrats would not provide the votes needed to pass the continuing resolution to keep the government open, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has folded.
NYT (“Schumer Will Clear the Way for G.O.P. Spending Bill, Breaking With His Party“):
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, broke with his party on Thursday and lined up enough Democrats to advance a Republican-written bill to keep federal funding flowing past a midnight Friday deadline, arguing that Democrats could not allow a government shutdown that many of them have demanded.
During a private luncheon with Democrats, Mr. Schumer stunned many of his colleagues by announcing that he planned to vote to allow the G.O.P. bill to move forward, and indicated that he had enough votes to help Republicans break any filibuster by his own party against the measure, according to attendees and people familiar with the discussion.
It was a turnabout from just a day earlier, when Mr. Schumer proclaimed that Democrats were “unified” against the legislation , and a remarkable move at a time when many of the party’s members in both chambers and progressive activists have been agitating vocally for senators to block it in defiance of President Trump.
In a speech hours later on the Senate floor, Mr. Schumer announced his plan to vote to move forward with the Republican measure, which would fund the government through Sept. 30. He argued that if Democrats stood in the way, it would lead to a shutdown that would only further empower Mr. Trump and Elon Musk in their bid to defund and dismantle federal programs.
“The Republican bill is a terrible option,” Mr. Schumer said in his evening speech. “It is deeply partisan. It doesn’t address far too many of this country’s needs. But I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option.”
In a shutdown, Mr. Schumer said, “the Trump administration would have full authority to deem whole agencies, programs and personnel nonessential, furloughing staff with no promise that they would ever be rehired.”
He also warned that if the government closed, Mr. Trump and Republicans would have no incentive to reopen it, since they could selectively fund “their favorite departments and agencies, while leaving other vital services that they don’t like to languish.”
Schumer published a NYT guest essay titled “Trump and Musk Would Love a Shutdown. We Must Not Give Them One.”
As I have said many times, there are no winners in a government shutdown. But there are certainly victims: the most vulnerable Americans, those who rely on federal programs to feed their families, get medical care and stay financially afloat. Communities that depend on government services to function will suffer.
[…]Mr. Trump doesn’t want the appropriators to do their job. He wants full control over government spending.
He isn’t the first president to want this, but he may be the first president since Andrew Jackson to successfully cow his party into submission. That leads Democrats to a difficult decision: Either proceed with the bill before us or risk Mr. Trump throwing America into the chaos of a shutdown.
This, in my view, is no choice at all.
[…]As bad as passing the continuing resolution would be, I believe a government shutdown is far worse.
First, a shutdown would give Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk permission to destroy vital government services at a significantly faster rate than they can right now. Under a shutdown, the Trump administration would have wide-ranging authority to deem whole agencies, programs and personnel nonessential, furloughing staff members with no promise they would ever be rehired.
The decisions about what is essential would, in practice, be largely up to the executive branch, with few left at agencies to check it.
Mr. Musk has reportedly said that he wants a shutdown and may already be planning how to use one to his advantage.
Second, if we enter a shutdown, congressional Republicans could weaponize their majorities to cherry-pick which parts of government to reopen.
In a protracted shutdown, House and Senate Republicans could bring bills to the floor to reopen only their favored departments and agencies while leaving other vital services that they don’t like to languish.
Third, shutdowns mean real pain for American families.
For example, a shutdown could cause regional Veterans Affairs offices to reduce even more of their staffs, further delay benefits processing and curtail mental health services — abandoning veterans who earned, and depend on, those resources.
A shutdown could continue to slash the administrative staffs at Social Security offices — delaying applications and benefit adjustments and forcing seniors to wait even longer for their benefits.
A shutdown could further stall federal court cases and furlough critical staff members — denying victims and defendants alike their day in court, dragging out appeals and clogging the justice system for months or years.
Finally, a shutdown would be the best distraction Donald Trump could ask for from his awful agenda.
Right now, Mr. Trump owns the chaos in the government. He owns the chaos in the stock market. He owns the damage happening to our economy. The stock market is falling, and consumer confidence is plummeting.
In a shutdown, we would be busy fighting with Republicans over which agencies to reopen and which to keep closed instead of debating the damage Mr. Trump’s agenda is causing.
I believe it is my job to make the best choice for the country, to minimize the harms to the American people. Therefore, I will vote to keep the government open.
This all makes sense in an alternative reality where government agencies aren’t being shut down by executive fiat and federal workers fired left and right without any regard for the law. With a shutdown, Democrats could use the filibuster to force compliance. Passing a CR through September removes that leverage for the next six months.
Beyond that, Schumer has been at this for decades and is surrounded by a team of savvy staffers. He surely didn’t have some grand revelation over the last two days about how a shutdown would affect the balance of power in Washington.
No, rather clearly, this is a calculation that Democrats might get blamed for the shutdown. As it is, all of the cuts and chaos are on the shoulders of Trump and Musk. And maybe that’s the right longer-term play. But, again, it essentially guarantees six more months of chaos at a minimum.
UPDATE: POLITICO Playbook depicts a generational divide on this among Congressional Democrats:
NOT THE FIGHT DEMS WANTED TODAY: Ahead of a midnight deadline to fund the government … at a moment when escalating tariffs and raging economic uncertainty have put the Dow on track for its worst week in two years … as President Donald Trump is expected to invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to carry out mass deportations as soon as today … with the president due to speak this afternoon at the Justice Department amid ongoing concerns about its independence and the rule of law … Democrats are seized by a debate over Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s reluctant support for the House GOP’s continuing resolution to avoid a shutdown.
The summary: On Tuesday, the House approved a stopgap that would keep the federal government funded through the end of the fiscal year, 217-213. … On Wednesday, Schumer announced that the House-backed CR did not not have the eight Democratic votes needed to overcome a filibuster — which some observers interpreted to mean that Schumer was going to go all-in on opposing the CR. … Yesterday, Schumer announced that he will support the CR.
What Schumer said: “As bad as passing the continuing resolution would be, I believe a government shutdown is far worse,” he wrote in a Times op-ed , launching into four primary reasons for that calculation: (1) A shutdown would give Trump and Elon Musk the ability to “destroy vital government services at a significantly faster rate than they can right now;” (2) Republicans could use the shutdown to “cherry-pick which parts of government to reopen;” (3) it’d mean “real pain for American families,” and; (4) it would distract from the “chaos” reining across government and the economy.
Cue the outrage. While it’s almost a certainty that there are a sufficient number of Senate Dems who privately share Schumer’s thinking, you sure didn’t hear from them in the ensuing maelstrom of reactions.
Today, you’re going to want to watch a few different things …
1. The split within the Senate Dem caucus. Support for the CR does not break down neatly along ideological lines. Yes, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) will vote for cloture. Yes, the most prominent lefties are nos. But it’s striking how many early-tenure Democratic senators — especially those from states Trump carried in 2024 — have lined up in opposition to the CR across a wide spectrum of views.
Consider this: In the hours after Schumer told his colleagues his position on the CR, Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) all reiterated their opposition to the CR. Add to that mix a few freshmen from bluer states, like Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), and you start to see a breakdown that is perhaps less ideological than generational. These younger, newer members view the world differently, Senate insiders told Playbook last night.
2. The House Dem reaction. One of the most surprising developments of the last 12 hours is that late last night, House Democratic leadership — repeat: not backbenchers — felt compelled to release a fiery statement that does not give Senate Dems who support the CR much of any room for cover.
From the statement: “The far-right Republican funding bill will unleash havoc on everyday Americans, giving Donald Trump and Elon Musk even more power to continue dismantling the federal government,” read the joint release from Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Whip Katherine Clark and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar. “House Democrats will not be complicit.”
Thought bubble: When was the last time that fellow Brooklynites Jeffries and Schumer seemed on such different pages in such a public manner?
And the caucus seems unified: “Virtually every swing district House Dem walked the plank to vote NO for a reason,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) noted last night . The gentlewoman from Queens was at a House Dem retreat in Virginia, where some members were “so infuriated with Schumer’s decision that some have begun encouraging her to run against Schumer in a primary, according to a Democratic member who directly spoke with Ocasio-Cortez about running,” CNN’s Sarah Ferris reports . “The member said that Democrats in Leesburg were ‘so mad’ that even centrist Democrats were ‘ready to write checks for AOC for Senate,’ adding that they have ‘never seen people so mad.’”
3. If not fight now, then when? On some level, this is a debate about what an effective resistance looks like. “In a political economy that requires attention and friction, we are passing up a huge opportunity to fight an unpopular president and his billionaire buddy,” posted Mike Casca, AOC’s chief of staff. “Fights define you. FDR knew this. Harry Reid knew this.”
But but but: Former Reid right hand Adam Jentleson sees it quite differently : “Schumer is right. Dems are understandably spoiling for a fight but this was not it. … Fight — but pick smart fights.”
What would a “smart” fight look like? The “oppose the CR” argument is more or less as Casca laid it out. But there are, of course, other ways to see it. Matt Yglesias offers a different view : The House Dems’ approach failed to bring Republicans to the negotiating table because they ruled out giving any votes to the CR. As a result, the party-line bill had to placate conservative Republicans, and as such, shifted “public policy to the right somewhat.” Senate Dems were left with no cards, and keeping the government open is the less-bad option.
Or, as Senate Republicans see it: “The Democrats have A or B: Keep the government open or yield the authority to the president,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), told my POLITICO colleagues Jennifer Scholtes and Megan Messerly .
That’s the calculation Schumer made: “Musk has already said he wants a shutdown, and public reporting has shown he is already making plans to expedite his destruction of key government programs and services,” Schumer said on the Senate floor last night. “A shutdown would give Donald Trump the keys to the city, the state and the country.”
All I know is that, if the roles were reversed, Senate Republicans would have extracted more—which is to say, any—concessions before going along.
The United Nations “Human Rights” Council is attempting an end-run around the Trump administration’s well-founded criticism .
An incendiary draft resolution, set for a vote next week, promises to criminalize Israeli and American military actions and their commanders in chief. If adopted, the Council plans to launch prosecutions targeting Israelis and Americans in national and international courts.
Leading the charge is a group of Islamic states — the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — led by Pakistan, and countries that count on American largess, like Jordan and Kuwait. Also pushing the anti-American outcome – while play-acting as an American peace-partner – is Council member Qatar.
For decades, U.S. administrations have failed to ensure serious consequences for America and Israel-bashing votes at the U.N. This pattern needs to stop.
NETANYAHU SLAMS ‘TERRORIST-SUPPORTING’ UN COUNCIL THAT ACCUSED ISRAEL OF COMMITTING SEXUAL CRIMES
The “Human Rights” Council resulted from a U.N. “reform” sham in 2006, when a “Council” replaced a “Commission.” The cure was worse than the disease. The Council’s members currently include such paragons of virtue as Algeria, China, Cuba and Sudan. The majority are not full democracies, and Islamic states routinely hold the balance of power through regional voting blocs. Israel is the perennial whipping boy – more resolutions, reports, special sessions and agenda time than any other country – while the worst human rights violators protect each other.
Antisemitism is the lingua franca. What passes for diplomatic niceties are wild blood libels, comparing Jews to Nazis, and continual attacks on the Jewish state’s creation.
In this context, the Islamic states propose to create a never-ending “mechanism” “to assist in the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for the most serious crimes under international law committed by all parties in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel .” The mechanism is “to prepare case files in order to facilitate …criminal proceedings,” “in national, regional and international courts or tribunals.” In short, the resolution sets up a global pogrom.
The sop to crimes by “all parties” is a bad joke, since “Hamas” never appears, and the only party said to engage in terrorism are Israelis.
The resolution deliberately ensnares Americans because the “crimes” include several aspects of the Israeli-American relationship. For instance, the resolution demands an arms embargo, to prevent Israelis from defending themselves against genocidal enemies.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER
The resolution targets “the direct and indirect transfer or sale” of “dual-use items to Israel,” including everything but the kitchen sink, like “goods” and “technologies.”
Before the called-for “investigations,” the resolution identifies alleged Israeli crimes already committed. Kangaroo courts are to be created to terminate Jewish racism and “apartheid.” No matter that Arabs are 20% of the Jewish state, with more democratic rights than in any Arab state, while the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have made clear a “State of Palestine” would manifest true apartheid by prohibiting Jews.
To top it off, Islamic states have decided for Jews what counts as antisemitism. Their resolution says, “criticism of violations of international law by Israel should not be conflated with antisemitism.” The OIC’s “legal” criticism of the Council in the recent past, voiced by Pakistan , has sounded like this: “the occupation forces encircle Rafah like vultures.”
“We condemn the occupying power’s brutal atrocities…spanning more than seven decades in ongoing barbaric aggression.” Libya: “The Israeli project aims at a final solution.” Qatar: Israel was conducting a “war of annihilation perpetrated for 75 years in Palestine.”
The U.S. is not a helpless bystander here. Any state refusing to vote against this resolution should know that the move will not be cost-free. The U.S. should withhold all funds from the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, which will staff and manage the “mechanism.” Any state or company that cooperates with discriminatory antisemitic boycotts and embargoes should not be doing business, directly or indirectly, with the government of the United States. It is high time to confront and terminate the U.N. bullies’ reign of terror.
Contrary to claims by the US president, we have found that diversity initiatives result in better scientists and greater progress
Donald Trump’s attacks on diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) initiatives since his January inauguration have been intense, indiscriminate and escalating. A tragic plane crash was baselessly blamed on DEI . All DEI programmes within public bodies have been ended and private contractors face cancellation if they also don’t comply. Webpages that defend religious diversity in the context of Holocaust remembrance have been taken down.
Science and academia have been particularly targeted. Universities are threatened with losing federal funding if they support DEI. Government reports and government-funded research are being held back if they include prohibited terms such as “gender”, “pregnant person”, “women”, “elderly”, or “disabled”. Grants funded by the National Institutes of Health are being cancelled if they address diversity, equality or inclusion in any form.
Christina Pagel is a professor of operational research within UCL’s clinical operational research unit. She is also a member of Independent Sage and vice president and EDI lead for the UK Operational Research Society
This article is based on a new report by Independent Sage on the importance of DEI in science. Christina Pagel led the report, but all members of Independent Sage contributed