Wednesday, June 18, 2025

'Monsters': Democrats lash out as TX legislature bans school clubs that support gay teens


Photo by Andra C Taylor Jr on Unsplash

June 01, 2025 | 


Democrats took to the floor of the Texas House on Saturday to label a ban on clubs that support gay teens the work of “monsters” and to say the ban endangers children and strips them of their dignity.

The Democratic representatives grew emotional in opposition to a bill that would ban K-12 student clubs focused on sexuality and gender identity.

Senate Bill 12, authored by Sen. Brandon Creighton, won final legislative passage Saturday after lawmakers in both chambers adopted the conference committee reports that specifically clarified that schools will be banned from authorizing or sponsoring student clubs based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Backers proclaimed that the bill enshrines a parent’s rights and puts the parent not just at the table, but at the head of the table where the child’s best interests are decided. They also targeted diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, claiming that they project ideologies on students and put too much focus on race, sexuality and gender identity instead of the quality of education.

Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, emphasized that these clubs exist because of a long history of oppression against the LGBTQ+ community. He warned against demonizing students and teachers for discussing gender and sexuality.

“The real monsters are not kids trying to figure out who they are,” Wu said during the House discussion. “The monsters are not the teachers who love them and encourage them and support them. They are not the books that provide them with some amount of comfort and information. The real monsters are here.”

Lawmakers shared personal stories about LGBTQ+ youth. Rep. Rafael Anchía said his daughter was a vice president of a pride club at her school. He stressed that these clubs “are no more about sex than 4-H or ROTC or the basketball team.”

“It wasn't a sex club,” Anchía said. “They'd get together and they'd watch movies. They'd color. They'd go to musicals. It was about a kid who felt weird who found her people and everything about it was good. I don't know why grown-ups in this body are so triggered with my daughter getting together with her classmates in a school-sponsored activity.”


















Anchía also told the Texas Tribune he “didn’t sign up for five anti-LGBT bills this session.”

Rep. Jolanda Jones, D-Houston, shared her experience as a Black woman and a lesbian, saying she didn’t come out until the age of 50 because she knew “the world wasn't safe.” She warned that banning LGBTQ+ clubs could worsen bullying.

“And we have the nerve to say that we care about mental health,” Jones said. “We've passed bill after bill about access to care, about youth suicide, about prevention and treatment. But this bill makes kids sicker, sadder, more alone. This bill doesn't protect children. It endangers them. It doesn't give parents more rights. It strips children of their dignity.”

SB 12 is often referred to as the “Parental Bill of Rights” because it claims to give parents more control over their children’s schools. But Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Driftwood, addressed those who are “afraid that your kids or your grandkids might grow up queer,” warning that the bill could harm family relationships.

“Getting silence in schools from the LGBTQ community, which is what this bill is designed to do, will not stop your kids from being gay,” Zwiener said. “It will just make them afraid to come out. It will make them afraid to live their lives as their full selves. It will make them afraid to tell you when they figure out that they're LGBTQ and it might damage your relationship with them forever.”

Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, argued that allowing religious organizations in schools but banning “clubs that allow students to be who they are, is a double standard that flies in the face of the principles you say you support.”

“An LGBTQ person can't change who they are any more than the fact that I can't change that I'm Black,” Collier said. “What you're saying to students today is that you will be accepted as long as you are who we say you should be.”

If signed by the governor, the bill will become law on Sept. 1.





















This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/31/texas-house-tempers-flare-gay-club-ban/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org



Pride Organizers Are Doubling Down on Teaching Radical Histories of Resistance


In the fight for dignity and democracy, trans people have much to teach.

June 3, 2025
A transgender rights activist holds a flag during the Trans Day of Visibility rally on the National Mall on March 31, 2025, in Washington, D.C.Kayla Bartkowski / Getty Images

This year, Pride Month arrives at an especially dire moment for the LGBTQ+ community. Under the second Trump administration, homophobic vitriol and violence are on the rise. On Elon Musk’s X platform, a “deepfake” video of Donald Trump canceling Pride Month has gone viral. And even as Pride celebrations continue as planned (in many places without as many corporate contributions), the attacks against LGBTQ+ people, especially transgender people, seem to be on steroids. After all, since taking office a second time, Trump has issued executive orders that ban transgender women in sports and transgender troops in the military, while limiting federal recognition to two genders. And his executive actions are only the spear tip of a significantly larger legislative attempt to target and scapegoat transgender people, who make up just over one percent of the U.S. population.

Believe it or not, so far this year, 701 anti-trans bills have been introduced in American legislative bodies at both the state and federal levels. More than $215 million was spent on anti-trans television advertisements during the 2024 election season alone. Now, Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” barely passed by the House and at present in the Senate — which would gut Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and other lifesaving safety-net programs — takes explicit aim at gender-affirming care for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) patients. If the Senate passes it, the result will be devastating for trans people, who are already twice as likely as the general population to be unemployed and unhoused and four times as likely to live in extreme poverty. It should be no surprise, then, that almost half of transgender adults in this country have already relocated or are considering relocating to more trans-affirming places.

While executive orders, budget cuts, and other attacks threaten all trans and nonbinary people, the most vulnerable are, of course, at greatest risk, including the poor, people of color, the young, the disabled, and the incarcerated. 

In a recent report, the ACLU offers a horrific insight into this reality:



'I don't appreciate the smirk': Senator scorches 'unserious' Hegseth in combative hearing


U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 18, 2025. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon
THE NEW CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
June 18, 2025

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth faced sharp and stern criticism during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing over his highly controversial decision to fire Air Force General Timothy D. Haugh, head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command. Reports suggested a far-right social media influencer was behind the move to terminate the NSA Director in what some have called a “loyalty purge.”

Calling General Haugh’s dismissal “sudden and inexplicable” and “deeply concerning,” U.S. Senator Jackie Rosen (D-NV) told Secretary Hegseth it “raises significant questions about the decision-making process,” and “its potential consequences.”

“Public reports indicate that the removal of General Haugh, who has served his country proudly, has been influenced by social media influencer, an influencer— a personality on social media, Laura Loomer—spreads conspiracy theories. She’s been denounced even by Republicans,” Senator Rosen charged. “And the idea that any leaders within our agency responsible for out nation’s security—somebody would be dismissed based on the advice of a social media influencer is alarming to say the least. It’s surely not how we should be running our military.”

Senator Rosen demanded to know if Hegseth was “consulted” regarding the dismissal of General Haugh.

“Well, Senator, I would not advise believing everything you read in the media,” was Secretary Hegseth’s response.

After a heated back-and-forth, Hegseth declared, “I’m the decision-maker for the department. And we all serve at the pleasure of the President, and we have the prerogative to make those decisions.”

Refusing to state specifically that he personally relieved general Haugh, Hegseth served up a more generic response.

“Anyone at that level who was relieved would be relieved by the Secretary of Defense,” he stated.

Hegseth also refused to respond when asked if there was a specific justification for General Haugh’s dismissal.

“Uh, Ma’am, we all serve at the pleasure of the President and the President deserves the type of Commanders and advisers that he thinks will best equip…to accomplish the mission.”

Hegseth also refused to say if he discussed dismissing Haugh with Laura Loomer.

“I don’t discuss who I talk about anything with, but ultimately, this is my decision, and he serves at the pleasure of the president, and that’s why he’s no longer there,” was the Secretary’s reply.

After another question, Hegseth told Senator Rosen, “Uh, I believe your time is up, Senator.”

“Oh,” Rosen vehemently responded, “it is not up to you to tell me when my time is up.”

“Well, the time—” Hegseth continued.

“I am going to say, Mr. Secretary, you’re either feckless or complicit. You’re not in control of your department. You are unserious. It is shocking. You’re not combating antisemitism within your ranks. It’s a dangerous and pivotal time in our nation’s history,” Senator Ro9sen warned.

“And I don’t appreciate the smirk, sir. You are the Secretary of Defense.”

Watch below or at this link.


 'Garbage': Pentagon chief defends renaming USNS Harvey Milk during Pride Month



U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on U.S. President Donald Trump's budget request for the Department of Defense, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 11, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz


David Badash
June 11, 2025
THE NEW  CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, testifying before Congress, offered his rationale for stripping the USNS Harvey Milk of its name and for the administration’s decision to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military.

The USNS Harvey Milk is named for the assassinated veteran and LGBTQ rights advocate. Milk was gunned down in 1978 at the age of 48 while serving as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He was the first openly gay man elected in California.

U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), appearing to question the necessity of unnaming and renaming the ship, told Secretary Hegseth: “You chose Pride month to direct the Navy to rename a ship named for Navy veteran Harvey Milk. This committee will continue to pursue serious work in the interests of American national security, and I ask you to choose to join us in that endeavor.”

Hegseth replied, “Um, Senator, we’re not interested in naming ships after activists. That’s the stance we’re taking.”

As recently as Tuesday, Hegseth told service members, “We’re not interested in your woke garbage and your political correctness.”

Reports have stated Hegseth intentionally chose Pride Month to strip the USNS Harvey Milk, and other ships, of their names.

USNI News reported that Harvey Milk “commissioned into the Navy in 1951 and served as a diver during the Korean War on the submarine rescue ship Kittiwake. He was discharged in 1955. Milk was wearing his U.S. Navy diver belt buckle when he was shot and killed in 1978.”

Senator Baldwin also asked Hegseth to explain why he and the administration decided to ban transgender service members.

“What assessment did the Department of Defense conduct prior to implementation to evaluate the impact that this policy would have on our national security?” Baldwin asked. “Moreover, what is the cost to recruit and train thousands of individuals of comparable experience and skill?”

“Thankfully, recruiting is not an issue,” Hegseth claimed. “It’s historically high levels and we’re proud of the cross section of Americans in life.”

“What analysis did you do?” Baldwin pressed.

“We did extensive analysis, Senator,” Hegseth insisted, “and we agree with the assessment of the executive order that was issued by the White House, that there are mental health issues associated with gender dysphoria that complicate military service and readiness, and as a result, we made the decision.”

“I have asked for that analysis,” Baldwin stressed. “Please provide it to me and the committee.”

Studies have shown that transgender service members in the military do not negatively affect military readiness.

Watch the videos below or at this link


'Going back to that time': Gay congressman confronts Hegseth on treatment of LGBTQ troops


U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attends a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on U.S. President Donald Trump's budget request for the Department of Defense, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 11, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
June 13, 2025

U.S. Rep. Eric Sorensen, a Democrat and the first openly gay member of Congress from Illinois, delivered strong criticism of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, accusing the embattled Pentagon chief of not caring about LGBTQ service members, and fostering an environment where LGBTQ people do not want to join the military. He also brought up the planned renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk, which the Secretary reportedly ordered to intentionally coincide with LGBTQ Pride Month.

Congressman Sorensen told Secretary Hegseth that Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in California, who was assassinated in 1978, served “courageously,” but was forced to resign from the Navy because he was gay.

“You see,” Congressman Sorensen said, “as a kid, all I wanted to be was the weatherman on TV. You know, I learned that I could have gone into the Army or the Navy to learn meteorology. But someone like me was not allowed. They didn’t want someone like me, Mr. Secretary.”

“There wasn’t anything that I could do to change myself, or the way that my nation thought of me. And so I want to keep this very simple. Do you believe that Harvey Milk is a veteran who deserves his country’s thanks?”

Hegseth attempted to dodge the question.

“Sir, the decision to rename the ship was—” Hegseth began.

“I’m just asking, do you believe that Harvey Milk is a veteran who deserves his country’s thanks? Yes or no,” Sorensen pressed.

“If his service was deemed honorable, yes,” the Secretary replied.

“I disagree with your leadership,” Sorensen said, “because I believe that every veteran deserves our thanks. We all walk in the footsteps of leaders before us, and you may not find the value in the fact that many of those people are women, with different skin colors, different backgrounds, different talents, immigrants, gay, straight, transgender, disabled.”

“You may want to change it, but you can’t. Because the America that you and I both serve is a place where everyone has the ability—or should have the ability—to grow up and be the hero their grandpa was. I wanted to do that when I was a kid.”

“We’re going back to that time,” the congressman warned. “Gay kids like me, they don’t want to go into the Army. They don’t want to go into the Navy, because you don’t care for them. It’s happening all over our country.”

“My grandpa taught me never to judge the value of a veteran’s service. And I hope, Mr. Secretary, you learn to do the same in your capacity, and you can find it in your heart, to make that part of your process.”

Watch the video below or at this link.







Revealed: The scale of Fox News' influence on US politics as Trump's ratings slide


May 24, 2025


Donald Trump’s ratings continue to slide on most issues. Recent Economist/YouGov polling across the US, completed on May 9-12, shows 51% think the country is on the wrong track, while only 45% have a favourable impression of his job as president. On inflation and prices in the shops, only 35% approve of his handling of this policy.


Trump seems to be scoring particularly badly with young voters. Around 62% of young people (18 to 29s) have an unfavourable opinion of the president, compared with 53% of the over-65s.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to pursue an agenda to close down, or shackle, much of the media it considers not on his side.

Funding for national public service radio NPR and television PBS, as well as the global news service Voice of America, is under threat. Some national news outlets are under investigation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for their coverage.

In a speech in March, Trump said broadcasters CNN and MSNBC, and some newspapers he didn’t name “literally write 97.6% bad about me”. He added: “It has to stop. It has to be illegal.”

The Trump team clearly see the role of the media as important to establishing and retaining support, and have taken steps to shake up White House coverage – including by changing who can attend the White House press pool.

About seven in ten members of the American public say they are following the news for updates on the Trump administration. It is interesting, therefore, to consider the role of the media in influencing Trump’s popularity, and insights can be found in the massive US Cooperative Election Study, conducted during the presidential contest last year.

That survey showed 57% of Americans had watched TV news in the previous 24 hours. Around 81% had used social media during the same period, but only 20% had used it to comment on politics.

There is a lot of attention being paid to fake news on the internet, which is helping to cause polarisation in the US. But when it comes to news about politics, TV coverage is still very important for most Americans.

The survey asked respondents about the TV news channels they watched, and Fox News came out on top with 47% of the viewers. ABC came second with 37%, and CBS and CNN tied on 35%. Fox News is Trump’s favorite TV station, with its rightwing populist agenda and regular output of Trump-friendly news.

Relationship between Trump voters and Fox News’s audience in 2024 US presidential election:


Source: Author graph based on Cooperative Election Study 2024, CC BY


The Cooperative Election Study had 60,000 respondents, which provides reasonably sized samples in each of the 50 states. The Trump vote varied quite a lot across states, with only 34% of voters in Maryland supporting him, compared with 72% in Wyoming. The electoral college formally decides the results of presidential elections, and this is based on states – so, looking at voting in this way can be quite revealing.

The connection between watching Fox News and Trump’s vote share can be seen in the chart above. It varies from 21% who watched the channel in Vermont to 60% in West Virginia.

Vermont is represented in Congress by Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist from a radical political tradition, and only 32% voted for Trump there. In contrast, West Virginia is part of the rust belt of impoverished states hit by deindustrialisation and the decline of the coal mining industry, and 71% voted for Trump there.

We can use a regression model (which looks at the relationship between variables) to predict support for Trump using key measures that drive the vote share for Trump in each state. The model uses three variables to predict the results with 95% accuracy, which means while not perfect, it gives a very accurate prediction of Trump’s vote.

Not surprisingly, partisanship – that is, the percentage of registered Republicans in each state – is one of the key metrics. In addition, ideology – the percentage of respondents who say they are conservatives – is another.

Perhaps more surprisingly, the third important predictor is viewership of Fox News. The relationship between watching the channel and voting for Trump is very strong at the state level. Also, the more time people spend watching the channel, the more likely they are to have voted for Trump.

Impact of key factors on Trump voting in 2024 US election:
Source: Author based on Cooperative Election Study , CC B

This chart calculates the relationship between watching Fox News and other factors and the strength of a state’s support for Trump in 2024. If a variable is a perfect predictor of Trump voting, it would score 1.0 on the scale. If it is a perfect non-predictor, it would score 0.

So, the most important predictor of being a Trump voter was the presence of conservatives in a state, followed by the percentage of registered Republicans, and the third was watching Fox News. A high score on all three meant greater support for Trump.

To illustrate this, 45% of Texans considered themselves conservatives, 33% were registered Republicans, and 51% watched Fox News. Using these measures, the model predicts that 57% would vote for Trump. In fact, 56% voted for him in that state in 2024. So, while the prediction was not perfect, it was very close.

A similar predictive model can be used to forecast former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris’s vote shares by state. In her case, we need four variables to predict the results with 95% accuracy – the percentage of registered Democrats, liberals and moderates in a state, and also Fox News viewership.

Not surprisingly in Harris’s case, the relationship between Fox News viewing and voting is strongly negative (correlation = -0.64). When viewership was high, the Harris vote was low.

Years ago, the “fairness doctrine” used to mandate US broadcasters to fairly reflect different viewpoints on controversial issues in their coverage. Candidates for public office were entitled to equal air time.

But this rule was removed by the FCC in 1987, and has led to an era of some broadcasters becoming far more partisan. The FCC decision followed a period of debate and challenges to the fairness doctrine. This led to its abolition under Ronald Reagan, the Republican president who inspired Project 2025 – the document that in turn appears to be inspiring the Trump government’s policy agenda.

When the Trump era is over, incumbent Democrats are going to have to repair US institutions that this administration has damaged. If they want to do something about the polarisation of US politics, they may also need to restore the fairness doctrine.

Had it not been removed in the first place, it is possible that Harris would have won the 2024 presidential election, since Fox News would not exist in its present form. Whatever happens next, the US media is likely to play an important role.

Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Revealed: Former progressive linked to far-right infiltration of publishing world


Photo by freestocks on Unsplash

June 03, 2025 
ALTERNET


In the past, Daniel Lisi — now a director at Foundation Publishing Group — interacted with a lot of liberals and progressives thanks to his involvement in Los Angeles' literary scene. But according to The Guardian's Jason Wilson, Foundation's new publishing deal with Passage Press gives Lisi a connection to the far right.

In an article published by The Guardian on June 3, Lisi explains, "The far-right U.S. publisher Passage Press is now part of Foundation Publishing Group and it is connected via a Foundation director, Daniel Lisi, to Network Press, whose only title to date is an 'effective accelerationist' manifesto by tech-right venture capitalist Marc Andreessen. Another right-wing publisher, science fiction publisher Ark Press, appears connected to Chapter House, which Lisi, a literary scenester in Los Angeles, originally co-founded as an independent publisher of poetry, sci-fi and esoterica, but which now presents itself as a homeschooling resource."

Wilson adds, "The developments illuminate the far right's efforts to disseminate ideologically charged material as art in the U.S., and raise questions about its place in the broader culture wars waged by the Trump Administration, which is carrying out a broad attack on what it sees as liberal culture…. Lisi, the publisher and director, spent years as a face in Los Angeles' diverse and left-leaning literary scene. He has now emerged as a player in a sprawling far-right cultural push, with his role in Foundation, Network, Passage and Ark revealed in company filings, trademarks, open-source materials and public records."

Lisi, according to Wilson, didn't respond to interview requests from The Guardian.

Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, finds the Passage/Foundation deal troubling and described it as "another example of the far right moving to directly impact culture, and especially young people, with extremist and anti-democratic beliefs."

Beirich told The Guardian, "These efforts represent another front in the culture wars, one that is pushing America further from democracy and equality and closer to autocratic rule.”

Passage, Wilson notes, was founded in 2021 by Jonathan Keeperman, who "long operated in far-right circles online under the online pseudonym 'L0m3z.'"

Read The Guardian's full article at this link.
Mao’s brutal onslaught against universities should teach Americans a lesson: historian


FILE PHOTO: Demonstrators rally on Cambridge Common in a protest organized by the City of Cambridge calling on Harvard leadership to resist interference at the university by the federal government in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S. April 12, 2025. REUTERS/Nicholas Pfosi/File Photo

June 05, 2025 

During the 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong pushed for the closure of Chinese universities, seeing higher education as little more than a breeding ground for counterrevolutionary bourgeois intellectuals. After closing for a period, China’s universities reopened on a limited basis from 1970, with selection criteria based on class background, revolutionary devotion and connections to the communist party.


It was not until 1977 that the national university entrance exam (gaokao) was reinstated and a merit system put back in place. This period had been China’s “Mao moment” in higher education, but Mao’s historic mistake appears to be repeating itself in the US today.
Over 13 centuries of tradition

Imperial China had a sophisticated system of examinations for citizens to reach the status of civil servant, or mandarin. These tests date back to the 7th century, under the Sui dynasty (581-618), and lasted until 1905.

Depending on the period, the exams lasted from one to three days. Candidates were locked in a room, identified by a number, and their tests were copied by a third party so that their identity could not be recognised by their handwriting. All this was to ensure a fair and impartial contest for candidates whose futures were at stake.

MIT professor Yasheng Huang says that if he had to highlight one fundamental difference between China and other civilisations, it would be the existence of these imperial examinations. He adds that they were both a blessing and a curse.

He also points out that they are directly to blame for the state’s ongoing monopolisation of human talent in China. Put simply, the best and brightest became mandarins under this system. By depriving society of access to the best talent, the state also denied its people the chance of having any kind of organised religion, commerce or intelligentsia.

For Huang, the imperial examinations were a significant cause of the decline of collective social action in China, one of the distinctive features of a civil society. This is reflected in the title of his 2024 book “The Rise and Fall of the EAST”, where EAST is not a compass point but an acronym for China’s defining features: Exams, Autocracy, Stability and Technology.
China prioritizes universities
“The ‘Chinese phenomenon’ is why this ancient civilization with a long history of more than 2,000 years has declined in the modern era. Why is it lagging behind the modern nations of the world?”


This question was posed in 1991 by the Chinese politician and intellectual Wang Huning, in his book America against America.

Ever since Deng Xiaoping came to power in 1978, it became increasingly clear to China that its progress depended on raising its population’s education level, especially after the ravages of the Maoist Cultural Revolution.

To do this, China created the C9 League in 2009. Composed of nine universities and similar to the American Ivy League, its members account for 10% of China’s national research budget, 3% of its total number of researchers, and 20% of published studies.
Defund Harvard?

When I spoke of “barbarians” in my 2024 book China for the New Barbarians,(Nola editores, 2024), I did so to call attention to the fact that there is a certain ignorance when the West speaks about China. However, the Trump Administration’s ongoing attacks against Harvard, one of the world’s most renowned universities, can only be described as barbaric.

Last week Harvard was barred from enrolling international students on the grounds of alleged leftist indoctrination and anti-Semitism. It has also revoked student visas and, as if that were not enough, it has demanded that universities hand over information on students who have participated in student protests.

What the Trump Administration wants is for Harvard to cease foreign admissions, a move that would lock out 6,500 students. In addition to denying Harvard access to top international talent, it would also inflict enormous damage to the ever-weakening concept of the “American spirit”, made up of democratic values, freedom, generosity, equality of opportunity, universal education, courage and leadership.

The measure has been temporarily blocked by a district judge, though this may not count for much – the Trump Administration has already set a precedent of disputing or ignoring court orders.

The situation is so dire that Jerome Powell – the chair of the Federal Reserve who was appointed by Trump during his first term – has been unable to keep quiet. Addressing Princeton University students at the May 2025 commencement speech, he stressed that American universities are the envy of the world, and a crucial asset for the US to continue to lead in scientific innovation and economic dynamism.Powell’s speech to Princeton graduates in May 2025. Source: Princeton University, YouTube.


Powell has himself been a target of Trump’s criticism. In response to Powell’s refusal to lower interest rates – which he has kept between 4.25% and 4.5% to contain inflation – the president has called him “Mr Too Late” and “Major loser”.
What does the rest of the world think?

The world watches in astonishment as the US federal administration attempts to dismantle the country’s university system, which for decades has been one of the US’ poles of attraction, and a bulwark of its economic and technological success.

This was perhaps best expressed by Oriaku, a Nigerian taxi driver I met back in the nineties who ferried me and my colleague Juan Gordon around Lagos. He told us about his dream of sending his children to Harvard, and when Juan commented that this would be expensive he wisely replied “if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.” “Harvard, Harvard,” Oriaku continued, “that’s the only reason I work myself to the bone.”

Moves are already being made elsewhere to pick up the slack and welcome academics. The Hong Kong government, for instance, has called on its universities to attract the foreign talent that the US now wants to reject.

Meanwhile, the Chinese can only smirk: they already lived through Mao’s brutal onslaught against their universities during the Cultural Revolution and know that it will bring no benefits. America is living through its own “Mao moments”, but we may soon be able rename them “Trump moments”.

Félix Valdivieso, Chairman of IE China Observatory, IE University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
'Pretty jarring': Flag 'synonymous with Christian nationalism' flies above gov't building


Image via Benjamin Clapp/Shutterstock.
Carl GibsonJune 17, 2025 | 08:37PM ET

A controversial flag associated with far-right causes was recently seen prominently displayed on a federal building, according to a new report.

In a Tuesday article, WIRED reported that the "Appeal to Heaven" flag was seen displayed on the flagpole of the Small Business Administration (SBA) earlier this week, just below the American flag. That flag — which depicts an evergreen tree with the text "An Appeal to Heaven" – was seen at the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and was also flown outside the vacation home of Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito in 2024.

SBA administrator Kelly Loeffler, who was a former Republican U.S. senator from Georgia who ultimately lost her seat to Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) in 2021, posted a photo of the flag flying above the SBA building on her official X account last week.

"Today at SBA’s Flag Day Ceremony, we proudly raised a new AMERICAN MADE flag over our headquarters in Washington," she tweeted. "It is a privilege to serve under its Stars and Stripes - on behalf of the 34 million small businesses who represent the best of America."

Multiple SBA staffers anonymously confided to WIRED that they were personally caught off guard by the flag's display, and argued that the flying of a far-right political symbol above their building gives the false impression that the workers inside subscribe to the beliefs associated with it.

“It was pretty jarring to walk out of work and see that flag on the building, and it’s frustrating because it makes it seem like the agency as a whole supports what it has come to stand for, when that’s just not true,” one staffer said. “We’re proud to do work that supports, or at least is supposed to support, all Americans. The decision to raise that flag isn’t one that reflects the views of everyone at SBA.”

"That the Appeal to Heaven flag is being flown on a government building alongside the American flag should be shocking to anyone who doesn't wish to live in a theocracy,” George Washington University extremism researcher Jon Lewis told WIRED. “The contemporary usage of the Appeal to Heaven flag is synonymous with Christian nationalism, full stop."
What warped the minds of America's serial killers? New book argues it's not what you think

LEAD POISONING 


June 16, 2025 | 

When Ted Bundy was a child in the 1950s, he hunted for frogs in the nearby swamps in Tacoma, Washington. The young Gary Ridgway, the future Green River Killer, grew up just a short drive north. Both men went on to become prolific serial killers, raping and mutilating dozens of women, starting in the 1970s and ’80s. These types of sociopaths are exceedingly rare, representing less than a tenth of 1 percent of all murderers by some accounts. Yet in Tacoma, they were surprisingly common — and there were more than just Bundy and Ridgway.

In her new book Murderland: Crime and Bloodlust in the Time of Serial Killers, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author Caroline Fraser maps the rise of serial killers in the Pacific Northwest to the proliferation of pollution. In this case, the lead- and arsenic-poisoned plume that flowed from Asarco’s metal smelter northwest of Tacoma, which operated for almost a century and polluted more than 1,000 square miles of the Puget Sound area, the source of the famous “aroma of Tacoma.”

Fraser grew up in the 1970s on Mercer Island, connected to Seattle by a floating bridge with a deadly design, not far from a terrifying lineup of serial killers. George Waterfield Russell Jr., who went on to murder three women, lived just down the street, a few years ahead of Fraser at Mercer Island High School. (No surprise, his family once lived in Tacoma.) She had always thought the idea that the Pacific Northwest was a breeding ground for serial killers was “some kind of urban legend,” she told Grist.

But after much time spent staring at pollution maps, and looking up the former addresses of serial killers, she came up with an irresistible hypothesis: What if lead exposure was warping the minds of the country’s most harrowing murderers? In Murderland, Fraser makes a convincing case that these killers were exposed to heavy metal pollution in their youth, often from nearby smelters and the leaded gasoline that was once burned on every road in the country.

Studies have shown that childhood lead exposure is connected to rising crime rates, aggression, and psychopathy. In children, it can lead to behavior that’s been described as cruel, impulsive, and “crazy-like”; by adulthood, it’s been linked to a loss of brain volume, particularly for men. Fraser doesn’t pin sociopathy solely on exposure to lead, though she suggests that it’s a key ingredient.

“Recipes for making a serial killer may vary, including such ingredients as poverty, crude forceps deliveries, poor diet, physical and sexual abuse, brain damage, and neglect,” Fraser writes. “Many horrors play a role in warping these tortured souls, but what happens if we add a light dusting from the periodic table on top of all that trauma?”

Fraser is a fan of true crime, but when writing the book, she tried to correct for what she sees as the genre’s problems, she said. Biographers often zoom in on a killer in isolation, like Ted Bundy or the Zodiac killer, and he comes off as some kind of mastermind. In Fraser’s telling, with all their deprived murders placed side-by-side, these killers seem patterned, almost predictable. “It was also revealing to see that they’re not only not as smart as we may have thought they were after Hollywood got through with them, but that their behavior is so similar,” she said. “Like, they’re almost kind of automatons, where their behavior’s very robotlike.”

Fraser draws a parallel between murderers as we normally understand them and more indirect killers, the book’s true arch-villain: smelting companies and the people profiting off them, like the famous Guggenheim family that acquired Asarco. In 1974, officials at Asarco’s Bunker Hill smelter in Kellogg, Idaho, did a back-of-the-napkin estimate and found that poisoning 500 children with lead had a legal liability of merely $6-7 million, compared to the $10-11 million they’d make by increasing lead production. So the choice was easy.

“The behavior of the people who built these smelters, invested in them, ran them, continued to emit tons of lead and arsenic into the air in populated cities — I mean, it’s beyond astonishing, what they did,” she said. Take Dr. Sherman Pinto, the medical director at the Tacoma smelter, who claimed that the lung cancer deaths among workers were simply because of pneumonia. “It just struck me how much their behavior is comparable to that of serial killers, because they’re constantly lying,” Fraser said.

Beyond the Pacific Northwest, the book follows the depraved behavior of Dennis Rader in Kansas in the 1970s and 1980s, and Richard Ramirez in California in the 1980s — both of whom also grew up near smelting. Even London’s famous Jack the Ripper was probably poisoned by the lead smelting boom in the 19th century, driven by demand for paint. Yet Murderland focuses on Washington state for a reason. When Fraser looked at the Washington Department of Ecology’s map of lead and arsenic contamination, she saw four plumes: The fallout from Asarco’s Tacoma smelter, another smelter plume in Everett, former orchard lands in central Washington that were sprayed with lead arsenate as a pesticide, and a cleanup site on the upper Columbia River.

“Every one of those plumes, including the most remote and least populated site on the Columbia, has hosted the activities of one or more serial rapists or murderers,” Fraser notes. (Israel Keyes, the serial killer and necrophiliac, grew up downriver from the Trail smelter in British Columbia.)

Leaded gas was fully phased out in the United States by 1996, and metal smelters have largely been decommissioned for financial reasons. But the legacy of lead remains with us. A recent experiment found that about 90 percent of toothpastes tested contained lead; a few weeks ago, the supermarket chain Publix recalled baby food pouches after product testing detected lead contamination. Last year, the Biden administration issued a regulation requiring drinking water systems across the country to replace lead pipes within 10 years, but the Trump administration and some Republicans in Congress are trying to roll back these protections.


“Regardless of whether you agree with my connection between lead exposure and serial killers, I do think people really need to be aware that that was a huge part of our history, and it’s still out there,” Fraser said. “I hope that this book does something to help people make connections between where they live, and what they might be exposed to, and what that might mean.”

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/culture/murderland-caroline-fraser-serial-killers-pacific-northwest-lead-pollution/.


Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org
Banking on Climate Chaos Report Shows 'Tremendous' Financing Surge

"The time for climate justice is now, and that means ending fossil fuel investment at its source and holding banks and financial institutions accountable," said one Native American environmental activist.


A protester holds a placard which states "Stop financing fossil fuels" during the demonstration outside JP Morgan on October 19, 2023 in London.
(Photo: Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Eloise Goldsmith
Jun 17, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


The 16th annual Banking on Climate Chaos report, which was released Tuesday, found that dozens of the world's biggest banks committed $869 billion to firms engaged in fossil fuels in 2024—a "tremendous" increase from the overall fossil fuel financing that was recorded the year prior, according to the authors of the study.

The report comes a few months after the World Meteorological Organization announced a new milestone in the climate crisis: Not only was 2024 the warmest year in a 175-year observational period, reaching a global surface temperature of roughly 1.55°C above the preindustrial average for the first time, but each of the past 10 years was also individually the 10 warmest on record.

The new report analyzed the globe's 65 largest banks by assets according to S&P Global's annual rankings and was authored by several climate-focused groups, including Rainforest Action Network (RAN), Sierra Club, Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), and others.

The report has been endorsed by hundreds of organizations in dozens of countries, according to a statement from RAN, and all banks in the report were given the opportunity to review the financing attributed to them prior to the report's release.

Big picture, the report shows that Wall Street investment banks and other financial institutions are "complicit in the climate crisis," according to Tom BK Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network and study co-author.

"The time for climate justice is now, and that means ending fossil fuel investment at its source and holding banks and financial institutions accountable," Goldtooth added.

The bank financing compiled in the report includes things such as the role banks play in facilitating bond issuances or their lending of money, according to the methodology section. Banks play a crucial role in enabling fossil fuel production because, as senior research strategist at RAN Caleb Schwarz explained, fossil fuel companies are quite rich but they don't have enough capital to finance their projects solely on their own.

Fossil fuel financing had been in on the decline between 2021 and 2023, dropping by $215 billion during that time period to $707 billion—meaning the rise in 2024 is a turnaround of over $162 billion.

"This growth in fossil fuel finance is troubling because new fossil fuel infrastructure locks in more decades of fossil fuel dependence," according to the report. "While various macroeconomic and political factors likely influenced specific decisions, at the end of the day, what matters is the outcome: Banks poured even more money into the expansion of the fossil fuel industry, despite the clear societal need for them to do the opposite."

Other topline findings include that the 65 banks featured in the report have committed $7.9 trillion in fossil fuel financing since 2016, and over two-thirds of the banks upped their fossil fuel financing between 2023 and 2024.

The world's biggest offender when it comes to fossil fuel financing in 2024 was JPMorgan Chase, which tallied $53.5 billion in fossil fuel financing, per the report. Bank of America came in second place.

"This should be a wake-up call to national governments and regional supervisory bodies that they need to step in," said Allison Fajans-Turner, bank engagement and policy lead at RAN and one of the co-authors of the report, on Tuesday. "Banks are not policing themselves. Regulators need to set rules to manage the financial risk that banks are putting into the system."

The authors of the report lay out several demands for banks, including that they drop all finance for fossil fuel expansion, adopt "binding and mandatory emissions reduction targets for upstream, midstream, and downstream fossil fuels," and increase financing for a "just transition," among others.


'Planet Wreckers': 4 Rich Nations Plotting Nearly 70% of New Oil and Gas Over Next Decade



"This is not just hypocrisy," said one climate campaigner. "It is a death sentence for communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis."


Climate defenders march in Houston on March 10, 2025.
(Photo: Kirk Sides/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Jun 16, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Four wealthy nations—the United States, Canada, Norway, and Australia—account for the majority of planned oil and gas expansion over the next decade, according to new data published by Oil Change International on Monday, the first day of the Bonn Climate Change Conference in Germany.

Oil Change's analysis, titled Planet Wreckers, notes that if those four Global North nations stopped their planned new oil and gas extraction, 32 billion tons of carbon pollution would stay in the ground instead of being burned and released into the atmosphere, where they fuel planetary heating. That's the equivalent of three times the annual global emissions created by burning coal.

"A handful of the world's richest nations remain intent on leading us into disaster. This is not just hypocrisy. It is a death sentence for communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis," Oil Change International global policy lead Romain Ioualalen said in a statement Monday.

"It is sickening that countries with the highest incomes and outsized historical responsibility for causing the climate crisis are planning massive oil and gas expansion with no regard for the lives and livelihoods at stake," Ioualalen added.


(Image: Oil Change International)


Nations that took part in the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP28, in Dubai committed to an equitable transition from fossil fuels. However, as Ioualalen noted, "this commitment is largely being ignored by some of the world's richest countries."

"Equity is not a buzzword. It is a foundational requirement to accelerate the transition," he asserted. "Until the richest countries commit to ending fossil fuel production and use and deliver adequate climate finance on fair terms, global calls for fossil fuel phaseout will ring hollow to developing countries that are struggling to meet development, energy access, and climate resilience needs."

The prospects of the U.S. making any meaningful near-term contribution to such a transition are dim given the Trump administration's "drill, baby, drill" energy policy.

The new report, and this year's Bonn conference, come between last year's COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan and the upcoming COP30 in Belém, Brazil. Oil Change noted that Brazil ranks among the 10 largest projected expanders of oil and gas over the next decade, with plans to surpass Saudi Arabia.

"Countries have an opportunity to course correct by working together," Ioualalen stressed. "COP30 must deliver a collective roadmap for equitable phaseout dates for fossil fuel production and use, to actually deliver on commitments all countries made at COP28."
'Bleeding support': Brutal chart fact-checks Trump’s claim his approval is 'highest it’s ever been'


U.S. President Donald Trump looks on as workers install a new flagpole on the South Lawn at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 18, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

June 18, 2025  
ALTERNET

President Donald Trump justified his mixed attitude toward Iranian strikes by saying Americans overwhelmingly approve his decisions.

"There are people outside [my] base who can’t believe it, they’re so happy,” Trump told one reporter at a June 18 press event. “There was a poll that just came out today. My approval rating is the highest it's ever been."

Jim Roberts, a reporter with The 74, was quick to point out that polls have not been that generous to Trump since the beginning of his term in January.

READ MORE: Senate Republicans 'blindsided' by Trump spending bill: 'No one was expecting this'

“In fact, in every month of both of his terms, Trump's approval ratings have been underwater, according to Reuters/Ipsos,” Roberts posted.



The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, released June 16, show Trump’s numbers hover at 42 percent, with Americans growing less supportive of his approach to immigration and crackdowns. Trump’s stance on immigration dropped from 47 percent in May to 44 percent. Additionally, 52 percent of Americans disapproved of Trump on the economy, and they gave him poor marks on foreign policy.

Democratic strategist Mike Nellis similarly cited polls putting Democrats at +8 on a generic ballot if the 2026 midterms were held today. That same survey reported 62 percent of Americans were worried about conflicts of interest between the billionaire president’s political decisions and how they are facilitating his growing wealth.

“He's bleeding support and the American people are p-----,” Nellis posted.

"Republicans Against Trump" continued their own steady drumbeat of bad numbers against the president, citing a poll showing 64 percent of Americans also have an unfavorable view of Trump’s budget proposal currently being debated in the Senate.

See the chart in the post above or at this link.
Watchdog Warns of Growing Global Threat as Nuclear-Armed Israel Attacks Iran

One SIPRI expert said the weapons "come with immense risks of escalation and catastrophic miscalculation—particularly when disinformation is rife—and may end up making a country's population less safe."



A fire blazes in the oil depots of Shahran, northwest of Tehran, on June 15, 2025, as Iran and Israel exchange fire.
(Photo: Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Jun 16, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

As Israel's assault on Iran generates global alarm, an international watchdog on Monday released an annual report warning that "a dangerous new nuclear arms race is emerging at a time when arms control regimes are severely weakened."

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's SIPRI Yearbook 2025 begins by acknowledging the 80th anniversary of the only times that nuclear weapons have been used in war: the U.S. bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

"In those eight decades, a great deal of death and destruction has been meted out in war but the taboo against using nuclear weapons has survived and grown stronger," the yearbook says. "This is, as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee noted when awarding the 2024 Peace Prize to the movement of Japanese nuclear survivors (hibakusha), Nihon Hidankyo, 'an encouraging fact.' Nonetheless, new risks mean it is worth reviewing today's nuclear challenge."

In addition to the United States, the confirmed nuclear-armed nations are China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and the United Kingdom. The global inventory is an estimated 12,241 warheads, most of which belong to the U.S. and Russia, according to SIPRI. As of January, about 9,614 of the weapons were in military stockpiles for potential use, including 3,912 deployed with missiles and aircraft.

"There needs to be a new, general understanding that nuclear weapons do not buy security and their existence demands balanced behavior by political leaders."

"In 2024, global security showed no overall improvement and some deterioration compared to the previous year. Several armed conflicts—not least in Ethiopia, Gaza, Myanmar, and Sudan—continued to escalate," the report states. "Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine continued, confrontation over Taiwan deepened, tensions on the Korean peninsula sharpened, and global politics were marked by increasing divisiveness and polarization sown by, among other causes of disputation, Israel's devastating offensive in Gaza."

The yearbook flags "new uncertainties" stemming from the November 2024 election of U.S. President Donald Trump, pointing out how "both allies and adversaries of the USA and all those in between found themselves navigating uncharted geopolitical and economic waters" in the wake of the Republican's return to office in January.

"Bilateral nuclear arms control between Russia and the USA entered crisis some years ago and is now almost over," the document details. "The one remaining bilateral U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control agreement is the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), agreed in 2010 and entering force in 2011, with a 10-year duration, extendable by five years upon mutual agreement."

Within days of U.S. President Joe Biden's 2021 inauguration, he and Russian President Vladimir Putin extended the treaty, now set to expire early next year—and, as the report notes, "there is no sign of negotiations to renew or replace it, and no sign on either side of wanting to do so."



Concerns extend beyond the U.S. and Russia. Although "the world's nuclear weapon inventory has been shrinking for almost 40 years," the yearbook explains, "in the last few years, the number of nuclear weapons in military stockpiles (deployed warheads and those in central storage available for use) has started to increase," specifically in China and India.

Earlier this year, India and Pakistan engaged in armed conflict—which Matt Korda, associate senior researcher with SIPRI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Program and associate director for the Nuclear Information Project at Federation of American Scientists, pointed to in a Monday statement.

"The combination of strikes on nuclear-related military infrastructure and third-party disinformation risked turning a conventional conflict into a nuclear crisis," Korda said. "This should act as a stark warning for states seeking to increase their reliance on nuclear weapons."

"It is critical to remember that nuclear weapons do not guarantee security," said Korda. "As the recent flare-up of hostilities in India and Pakistan amply demonstrated, nuclear weapons do not prevent conflict. They also come with immense risks of escalation and catastrophic miscalculation—particularly when disinformation is rife—and may end up making a country’s population less safe, not more."

Highlighting signs of a new nuclear arms race "gearing up," the publication warns that "compared to the last one, the risks are likely to be more diverse and more serious. Among the key points of competition will be technological capacities in cyberspace, outer space, and ocean space. Thus, the arms race may be more qualitative rather than quantitative, and the idea of who is ahead in the race will be even more elusive and intangible than it was last time round. In this context, the old largely numerical formulas of arms control will no longer suffice."

The report asserts that "there needs to be a new, general understanding that nuclear weapons do not buy security and their existence demands balanced behavior by political leaders. There also needs to be more training for diplomats in matters of nuclear arms control. This can make possible initial small steps towards reducing risk: hotlines, transparency, even informal understandings and formal agreements, such as no first use of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon free zones."

"These will form guardrails against disaster," SIPRI stressed. "Together with the voices of an informed public, they could also be part of building the pressure for the three great powers to take the next steps in reducing their nuclear arsenals."

The publication was released after the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) reported last week that "in 2024, the nine nuclear-armed states spent more than $100 billion or $190,151 per minute—on their nuclear arsenals—an increase of 11% from the previous year."



SIPRI's report also comes as Israel faced global criticism for targeting Iranian nuclear power facilities and scientists.

Trump—who sabotaged the Iran nuclear deal during his first term—suggested Sunday that American forces "could get involved" to support Israel in the conflict, which has killed civilians in both countries. U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) on Monday introduced a war powers resolution intended to prevent the president from attacking Iran without congressional debate and authorization.

Meanwhile, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said Monday that the nation's legislative body is now drafting a bill to withdraw from the landmark 1968 Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons.