NO ENDORSEMENT

Donald Trump Practically Demands Joe Rogan To Endorse Him

Kelly Coffey-Behrens

THE BLAST
Sat, October 26, 2024

Former President Donald Trump recorded a nearly three-hour episode of "The Joe Rogan Experience" on Friday, taking his message to the nation's most-listened-to podcast.

Naturally, the two aren’t unfamiliar with each other—Trump and Rogan have crossed paths at UFC events on multiple occasions over the years, as Trump is a frequent attendee. The appearance on Rogen's podcast comes as Trump aims to expand his reach among young male voters—a demographic in which Rogan holds considerable influence.

In typical rally-style, Donald Trump’s conversation with Joe Rogan touched on a mix of topics, ranging from his appearance on "The View" during his first campaign, hosting "The Apprentice," and even UFOs and dead whales.

Donald Trump Wanted A Public Endorsement From Joe Rogan

MEGA

Trump made his long-awaited debut on "The Joe Rogan Experience" Friday night, and from the looks of it, the former president wasn’t about to leave without securing a public endorsement—right then and there!

Trump flaunted his "nicest endorsement" from Elon Musk before nudging Rogan with, "You should do the same thing, Joe."

The relentless former President of the United States pressed Rogan, dismissing any chance of him supporting Kamala Harris, even joking, "You're a Khabib [Nurmagomedov] person, but you're not a Kamala person," which earned a genuine laugh from Rogan, referencing the UFC superstar.

Despite Trump’s persistent urging, Rogan didn’t commit to endorsing him—at least, not yet—and notably didn’t rule out the possibility down the line.
Donald Trump Reveals The ‘Biggest Mistake’ He Made During His First-Term

MEGA

According to Trump, in his conversation with Rogan, he expressed regret over certain appointments made during his first term:

"The one question that you'll ask me that I think you'll ask me that people seem to ask -- and I always come up with the same answer – if I, the one mistake because I had a lot of success, great economy, great, everything was great with the military rebuilt the biggest tax cuts in history, all the stuff we did, we had a great presidency.

Three Supreme Court justices. Most people get none. You know, you pick them young this way. They're there for 50 years. Right. So, you know, even if a president is there for eight years, oftentimes they never have a chance. I had three. It was the luck of the draw."

But I will say that it always comes back to the same answer. The biggest mistake I made was I picked some people, I picked some great people, you know, but you don't think about that. I picked some people that I shouldn't have picked. I picked a few people that I shouldn't have picked."

Rogan chimed in, "And neocons," to which Trump immediately followed up, "Yeah, neocons or bad people or disloyal people."

Joe Rogan Has Previously Said Donald Trump Is Not A Dictator

Instagram | Joe Rogan

On a September 11, 2024, episode, Rogan remarked that Trump’s first term in office wasn’t as extreme as many had initially feared it might be.

"Everyone's saying he's going to be a dictator. Well, he wasn't a dictator. He was the president," Rogan said at the time. "He actually was the president for four years and the economy really did well and he really did try to cut some of the bullsh-t down that's going on in this country."

However, Rogan noted that voters seemed to wrestle more with Trump’s personality than with his policies, telling his listeners, "We don't necessarily want that as the guy with his finger on the button."
Joe Rogan Previously Declined To Interview Donald Trump

MEGA

Back in July 2022, Rogan openly shared that he had turned down multiple chances to interview Trump, making it clear he was “not a Trump supporter in any way, shape, or form.”


“I’ve had the opportunity to have him on my show more than once—I’ve said no every time. I don’t want to help him. I’m not interested in helping him,” Rogan stated firmly.

In that same episode, Rogan speculated that Trump would end up running “against a dead man,” a pointed reference to President Joe Biden, who was widely expected to be the Democratic candidate.
Joe Rogan Says Donald Trump 'Might Be A Sociopath'

MEGA

In a September 2023 episode featuring Bill Maher, Rogan seemed to present Biden and Trump as equally flawed—a comparison Maher strongly rejected.

"He might be crazy," Rogen said. "He might be a sociopath."

Why Joe Rogan Is Being Dubbed A 'Coward' After Hosting Donald Trump On Podcast

Kelly Coffey-Behrens

THE BLAST
Sat, October 26, 2024 


On Friday night, former president Donald Trump finally made his much-anticipated debut on Joe Rogan's podcast, "The Joe Rogan Experience," and it seemed the former president had his sights set on securing a public endorsement before the episode wrapped.

The 45th President of the United States brought up his "nicest endorsement" from Elon Musk before urging Rogan, "You should do the same thing, Joe."

Despite Donald Trump’s repeated encouragement, Joe Rogan stopped short of an endorsement—and he is now being labeled a "coward."

Donald Trump Appears on Joe Rogan's Podcast

MEGA

The three-hour interview between Republican presidential nominee Trump and Rogan, America’s top podcaster, has finally dropped.

In their expansive conversation, Trump touches on topics ranging from the “biggest mistake” of his time in the White House to his interactions with North Korea’s leader and even speculations on extraterrestrial life.

Notably, Rogan once labeled Trump “an existential threat to democracy” and declined multiple invitations to host him. However, the two appeared on friendly terms during Friday’s chat, bonding over their shared interest in the "Ultimate Fighting Championship" and mutual friends like Elon Musk.

#JoeRoganIsACoward Trends On X

At one point, Trump joked, "You're a Khabib [Nurmagomedov] person, but you're not a Kamala person," drawing a genuine laugh from Rogan as he referenced the UFC icon and attempted to get an endorsement from Rogan. Though, it wasn't enough because Rogan never actually endorsed the former president.

Following the release of the podcast episode, social media users took to X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, using the hashtag #JoeRoganIsACoward to express their feelings.

"History will be remembered by who stood by and did nothing. #joeRoganisacoward," one user said.

"Hilarious how many pro Trump guys Rogan has had on his podcast," another began. "You would’ve thought he’d come prepared or at LEAST give a descent follow up question. Congrats Joe, you played yourself, and you are no worse than #foxnews #JoeRoganIsACoward."

"Let’s get it trending," another said, adding the hashtag #JoeRoganIsACoward.
Joe Rogan Previously Declined To Interview Donald Trump

Instagram | Joe Rogan

While Rogan has not publicly endorsed Trump, he has been publicly tied to the former president, having crossed paths at UFC events on multiple occasions over the years.



Additionally, back in July 2022, the podcaster candidly revealed that he had declined several opportunities to interview Trump, stating firmly that he was “not a Trump supporter in any way, shape, or form.”

“I’ve had the opportunity to have him on my show more than once—I’ve said no every time. I don’t want to help him. I’m not interested in helping him,” he stated at the time.

Plus, in a September 2023 episode featuring Bill Maher, Rogan said, "He might be crazy. He might be a sociopath," describing Trump.
Joe Rogan Supported RFK Jr.

MEGA

In August, Rogan voiced his support for independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., offering praise for his campaign.

"I am a fan. He's the only one to make sense to me. He's the only one that doesn't attack people. He attacks actions and ideas, but he's much more reasonable and intelligent," Rogan said during an episode of his podcast.

The following day, Rogan clarified his remarks in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, emphasizing that his praise for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was not an “endorsement.”

"For the record, this isn't an endorsement. This is me saying that I like RFK Jr as a person, and I really appreciate the way he discusses things with civility and intelligence," Rogan wrote at the time. "I think we could use more of that in this world."
More On Joe Rogan's Controversial Podcast

Known for his marathon-length interviews on "The Joe Rogan Experience," which consistently ranks as the No. 1 podcast in the United States on Spotify’s charts, Rogan has stirred controversy over his casual language, often referring to women as “chicks.”

He also drew criticism for laughing during a conversation in which a comedian friend recounted instances of pressuring young female comics into sex.

Recently, he received immense backlash after saying “the idea that Jewish people are not into money is ridiculous."


Joe Rogan asked Donald Trump for specifics on how 2020 was stolen. Then could only laugh at the answer

Alex Lang
Sat, October 26, 2024 

THE INDEPENDENT

Joe Rogan asked Donald Trump for specifics on how 2020 was stolen. Then could only laugh at the answer

Joe Rogan could be seen laughing as he pressed former president Donald Trump for specifics on how the election was stolen in 2020.

The Republican nominee sat down Friday for an interview with the No. 1 podcaster. The interview ran for three hours and delayed Trump’s appearance in Traverse City, Michigan, later in the day.

At one point, Trump and Rogan started to discuss the 2020 election.

“I won by like,” Trump said, “I lost by like…I didn’t lose.


Rogan could then be seen laughing.

“They say I lost, Joe, they say I lost by 22,000 votes,” Trump continued. “That’s like one one-tenth of one percent, it’s less than that. It’s a tiny little thing. Twenty-two thousand votes that’s spread all over this period.

“Fifty-one intelligent agents lied, they lied, they knew it was Hunter’s, it was from his bed. They said it was created by Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia. It was the Russia hoax.”

Donald Trump sat down with Joe Rogan for a podcast interview. At one point, Rogan could only laugh as Trump rambled when asked about how the 2020 election was stolen (Joe Rogan Experience)

That exchange came as Rogan continued to ask Trump for examples of how the 2020 election was “crooked” as Trump claimed.

“Let’s start at the top and the easy ones. They were supposed to get legislative approval to do the things they did, and they didn’t get it in many cases, they didn’t get it,” Trump said.

Rogan asked what the “things” were, and the Republican nominee could only say “anything.”

“Like for extensions of the voting, for voting earlier. All these different things by law, they had to get legislative approvals. You don’t have to go any further than that,” the 78-year-old nominee said.

“If you take a look at Wisconsin, they virtually admitted that the election was rigged, robbed, and stolen. They wouldn’t give access in certain areas to the ballots because the ballots weren’t signed. They weren’t originals. They were– we could go into this stuff. We could go into the ballots, or we could go into the overall. I’ll give you another way.”

The podcaster then asked Trump if he would ever present the evidence, Trump responded with “uh.” He then went into a rant about Russia and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Trump has made his stolen election claim a central part of his campaign against Democratic rival Kamala Harris (AFP via Getty Images)

Despite there being no evidence of mass election fraud, Trump continues to push the idea that the election was stolen. It’s become a centerpiece of his campaign against Democratic rival Kamala Harris.

Earlier this month, during a Michigan rally, Trump addressed his stolen election claims as he spoke soon after prosecutor Jack Smith made a filing in the federal criminal case against the former president accusing him of election interference.

“You know last time, last election, we did great in 2016, a lot of people don’t know we did much better in 2020,” Trump told the crowd on October 4. “We won, we won, we did win. It was a rigged election, it was a rigged election.

“You have to tell Kamala Harris, that’s why I’m doing it again, if I thought I lost, I wouldn’t be doing this again. You know where I’d be right now, on the beaches of Monte Carlo maybe, or some place. Be having a nice life.”

How Ben Shapiro Was Silenced by Harris-Supporting Trans Man

Emell Derra Adolphus
Fri, October 25, 2024 

Joshua Blanchard

Conservative pundit and provocateur Ben Shapiro took on 25 supporters of Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in a debate video published Thursday.

Posted to digital media company Jubilee’s YouTube channel as part of its Surrounded series, which aims to confront ideological and political differences head on, Shapiro sat in the middle of a circle, presented his arguments—and had them challenged claim-by-claim.

The first point of discussion was Shapiro’s assertion that Democratic candidate Kamala Harris’ efforts to prioritize diversity, equity and inclusion in her policies are “destructive.”

When asked from a supporter why centering DEI is a “destructive thing,” Shapiro, co-founder of the Daily Wire, called it a “failure of logic” that “separates groups on the basis of race.”

He added, “Which is not actually the best way of bringing Americans together.”

The exchanges were mostly cordial, with Shapiro responding calmly with conservative talking points.

However, a trans man’s comments about men experiencing pregnancy, sexual assault and access to abortion rights left him visibly shaken.

“I‘ve experienced [sexual assault] and abortion rights affect me directly,” the man explained. “So if we are talking about the American Dream that you live, why don’t I have access to that? Because there is no legislation in the history of America that legislates a man’s body. So why does mine have to be legislated?”

“I’ve got a vagina,” the man added, to which a flustered Shapiro responded, “Um, I’m not interested in what your genitalia are.”

“Clearly you are, I mean it’s all over everything you make buddy,” the man replied in turn.

The rest of the discussion covered the Israel-Gaza war, benefits for asylum seekers, and Donald Trump’s non-committal to the peaceful transfer of power.

“He should have spoken earlier, I agree,” said Shapiro of Trump when addressing the moments that led up to the Jan. 6 insurrection. He added that he was “not going to defend his behavior.” But he still wants Trump to be president.

Shapiro hasn’t been the only conservative willing to sit in the hot seat and have their views challenged. In September, conservative Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk took on 25 college students to similar results, producing several viral social media moments. (One of the students featured in that video later debated a group of 20 Trump supporters, because of course content breeds content.)

At the end of the debate, Shapiro called the whole exercise “a lot of fun.”

“Other than a couple of minor hiccups, I think everybody was coming at this in good spirit and wanting to have a fun conversation,” he said. “There are a lot of intelligent people in the circle, and it’s fun to hear what they had to say.”

NON ENDORSEMENTS ENDORSE TRUMP

LA Times Owner Patrick Soon-Shiong ‘Has No Regrets’ About Harris Endorsement Uproar After Staff Protests

Ross A. Lincoln
Fri, October 25, 2024


For the first time since the story broke, the Los Angeles Times has published coverage of the growing scandal over owner Patrick Soon-Shiong’s decision to spike a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris — by interviewing Soon-Shiong, who insists nothing is wrong.

In the interview, published Friday evening shortly after LA Times staffers posted an open letter calling out management for ignoring the story, Soon-Shiong said he has “no regrets whatsoever” about the matter. “In fact, I think it was exactly the right decision.”

That decision — to kill not only the endorsement of Harris but also a planned series connected to it that laid out the case against Donald Trump — has sparked an existential crisis for the 142-year-old paper. Alongside a spike in subscription cancelations and outspoken subscriber outrage, several high profile staffers have resigned in protest — and then there is of course the open letter.

In that letter, published Friday afternoon, LA Times employees called on Soon-Shiong and top editor Terry Tang to stop ignoring the story, stop blaming the editorial board for the scandal, and to “restore trust” with readers.

“The Times has undermined [readers’] trust with its handling of the non-endorsement and the reaction that followed,” the letter, signed by 200 LA Times staff members, said in part.

The issue, the letter argues, isn’t whether or not the LA Times should endorse anyone. Instead, it’s that the publication’s leadership hid the decision from staff and from readers and — until the interview with Soon-Shiong — had not allowed the paper’s journalists to cover it.

The letter also specifically called out Soon-Shiong’s dissembling statement earlier this week that, as Times staffers wrote, “publicly blamed the members of the Editorial Board for his decision not to endorse, saying incorrectly that ‘they chose to remain silent.’ They did not. They planned an endorsement — one that was rejected. The owner’s action unnecessarily made Editorial Board members vulnerable to harassment, impacting their ability to effectively perform their jobs.”

The letter also notes that the scandal has been extensively reported on by competitor outlets including the New York Times, Semafor and others, while as of Friday morning nothing had appeared on the LA Times in print or online.

The paper “has also not explained to its readers or staff why it issued no endorsement in the presidential race,” the letter added.

On Wednesday, Editorial Editor Mariel Garza resigned in protest over Soon-Shiong’s interference with the paper’s editorial freedom. She was joined on Thursday by two longtime LA Times editorial writers — Karin Klein, and Pulitzer Prize-winner Robert Greene. Klein and Garza both specifically cited the matter in resignation statements.

Nevertheless, speaking to LA Times staff writer James Rainey, Soon-Shiong insisted he doesn’t understand any of this. “I’m disappointed by the editorial [board] members resigning the way they did. But that’s their choice, right?”

“Is this just groupthink, brainwashing or what, on either side? I think we stand for more than that. We should be an organization that stands up and says the facts,” the billionaire continued. Rainey characterized this comment as referring to some notion of ideological fairness.

“I think that the country needs that desperately,” Soon-Shiong said also.

Meanwhile, the staff letter demands that LA Times leadership “thoroughly cover this story so that readers fully understand what transpired,” explain to readers why the endorsement was canceled and provide “clarity about the broader endorsement process,” and retract the false statements made about the Editorial Board and make it clear they “wanted to write an endorsement and did not choose to remain silent.”

The interview with Soon-Shiong remains as of this writing the paper’s only coverage of the scandal. Leadership has still not provided any specific clarity to readers, nor has Soon-Shiong retracted his false characterization of the editorial board’s role in the canceled Harris endorsement.

Meanwhile, according to the Times’ own coverage, thousands of subscribers — including actor Mark Hamill — have canceled their subscriptions since the story became public.

Read more here, here, here and here.

The post LA Times Owner Patrick Soon-Shiong ‘Has No Regrets’ About Harris Endorsement Uproar After Staff Protests appeared first on TheWrap.

Daughter of Los Angeles Times owner says Harris endorsement was blocked over Gaza war support

The Los Angeles Times building is seen in El Segundo, California 

CNN Business · Richard Vogel/AP

Liam Reilly, CNN
Sat, October 26, 2024 

The daughter of Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong suggested on Saturday that her father’s decision to block the newspaper’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris was made over Harris’ support for Israel’s war in Gaza.

Nika Soon-Shiong, a 31-year-old activist who has no official role at the newspaper but has previously been accused of meddling in its coverage, told The New York Times that she and her father made the decision not to endorse Harris.

“Our family made the joint decision not to endorse a Presidential candidate. This was the first and only time I have been involved in the process,” she said. “As a citizen of a country openly financing genocide, and as a family that experienced South African Apartheid, the endorsement was an opportunity to repudiate justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and ongoing war on children.”

Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire doctor who purchased the Los Angeles Times in 2018 for $500 million, later refuted her comments, saying that she was not involved in the decision.

“Nika speaks in her own personal capacity regarding her opinion, as every community member has the right to do. She does not have any role at the LA Times, nor does she participate in any decision or discussion with the editorial board, as has been made clear many times,” he said in a statement to CNN.

A representative for Nika Soon-Shiong did not respond to a request for comment.

The comments come days after Patrick Soon-Shiong, in a surprise decision, blocked plans to endorse Harris, igniting outrage within the newspaper and leading to a wave of readers canceling their subscriptions. The newspaper has endorsed a candidate in every presidential election since it backed Barack Obama in 2008.

Three members of the Times’ editorial board resigned over the decision. Mariel Garza, the leader of the newspaper’s editorial board who resigned on Wednesday, told the New York Times she was not given a reason why he refused the endorsement.

“If that was the reason that Dr. Soon-Shiong blocked an endorsement of Kamala Harris, it was not communicated to me or the editorial writers,” Garza said in a statement. “If the family’s goal was to ‘repudiate justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and ongoing war on children,’ remaining silent did not accomplish that.”

“If the family’s goal was to ‘repudiate justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and ongoing war on children,’ remaining silent did not accomplish that,” Garza added.

Nika Soon-Shiong’s statement comes a day after she addressed the “controversy and confusion over the LAT’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate,” stating in a social media post that “genocide is the line in the sand.”


“This is not a vote for Donald Trump,” she wrote. This is a refusal to ENDORSE a candidate that is overseeing a war on children. I’m proud of the LA Times’ decision just as I am certain there is no such thing as children of darkness. There is no such thing as human animals.”

In an interview this week, Patrick Soon-Shiong said that he had offered the newspaper’s editorial board the option to elaborate on policy differences between Harris and Trump instead of an endorsement.

“My fear is that if we chose either [candidate] that it would just add to the division,” Soon-Shiong told Spectrum News 1 SoCal.

“I want us desperately to air all the voices on the opinion side, on the op-ed side,” he said. “I don’t know how [readers] look upon me or our family as ‘ultra progressive’ or not, but I’m an independent.”

The Times is not alone in announcing an eleventh-hour reversal on endorsement precedents.

On Friday, The Washington Post shared that it would not endorse a candidate in this or any future presidential election. As with the Times, the decision was handed down by the publisher’s billionaire owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the newspaper reported.

The Post has similarly been critiqued for the last-minute about-face.

“To declare a moment of high principle, only 11 days before the election that is just highly suspect that is just not to be believed that this was a matter of principle at this point,” Marty Baron, the Post’s former executive editor, told CNN’s Michael Smerconish on Saturday.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

Washington Post Resignations and Cancellations Begin, Guild Says Bezos Axed Endorsement: ‘Management Interfered’

JD Knapp
Fri, October 25, 2024 




The Washington Post Guild condemned Jeff Bezos’ decision Friday not endorse a presidential candidate for the first time in 36 years, news that already prompted at least one top editor to resign and a significant number of canceled subscriptions.

The union’s statement confirmed earlier reports that the decision to end endorsements – in this election, and going forward – came directly from the Amazon boss. The WaPo editorial board already had a Kamala Harris endorsement piece ready to go before it was ultimately nixed.

“We are deeply concerned that The Washington Post — an American news institution in the nation’s capital — would make the decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, especially a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election,” the guild shared on X. “The role of an editorial board is to do just this: to share opinions on the news impacting our society and culture and endorse candidates to help guide readers.”


Editor at large Robert Kagan has already submitted his resignation from the paper, according to Semafor media writer Max Tani.



“The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis — not from the editorial board itself — makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in editorial. According to our own reporters and guild members, an endorsement for Harris was already drafted, and the decision to not to publish was made by The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos.”

“We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers,” the guild concluded. “This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.”

The controversial move echoes a similar situation unfolding at The Los Angeles Times with its own billionaire leader, Patrick Soon-Shiong.

More to come…

The post Washington Post Resignations and Cancellations Begin, Guild Says Bezos Axed Endorsement: ‘Management Interfered’ appeared first on TheWrap.





Washington Post Staff Is Furious That Bezos Nixed Presidential Endorsement

Nikki McCann Ramirez
Fri, October 25, 2024 



For the first time in 36 years, The Washington Post will not be endorsing a candidate in a presidential election — and their newsroom is furious.

On Friday, the Post’s publisher and CEO Will Lewis announced in a published statement that they “will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election.”

“Our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent. And that is what we are and will be,” he added

The Post itself reported that its editorial leadership was prepared days ago to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris over her opponent, former President Donald Trump, but a last minute intervention by the paper’s billionaire owner Jeff Bezos killed the planned endorsement.

Lewis — who previously headed the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal and cut his teeth in conservative UK publications — was hand picked by Bezos in 2023 to take over the masthead at the Post. His tenure has been marked by a series of ethics scandals, including the ouster of editor Sally Buzbee after she refused to bury a story at his request, and revelations earlier this year that Lewis had offered NPR an exclusive interview in exchange for an agreement to kill a story about Lewis’ involvement in covering up illegal phone hacking by Murdoch-owned tabloids.

Lewis is Bezos’ man and, according to the Post’s report, Bezos ordered him to kill the publication’s endorsement of Harris — which had already been drafted.

When the news broke, the split between staff members at the Post and their management was almost instantly apparent.

“We are deeply concerned that The Washington Post — an American news institution in the nation’s capital — would make the decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, especially a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election,” the Washington Post Guild wrote in a statement on Friday. ‘”The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis — not from the Editorial Board itself — makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial.”

“We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers,” the statement continued. “This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.”

Others were less diplomatic in their response. “If you don’t have the balls to own a newspaper, don’t,” one Post opinion columnist told Semafor on Friday. A member of the Post’s editorial department told CNN that the decision was “an outrageous abdication of responsibility,” adding that “democracy doesn’t die in darkness, it dies when people anticipatorily consent to a fascist’s whims.”

Karen Attiah, a columnist at the Post who edited Jamal Khashoggi — a Post journalist who was brutally murdered by agents of the Saudi government in 2018 — wrote that the non-endorsement was an “absolute stab in the back,” and “an insult to those of us who have literally put our careers and lives on the line, to call out threats to human rights and democracy.”

Post Opinion Columnist Robert Kagan confirmed to multiple publications that he had resigned from the newspaper in protest of the intervention by Bezos.

Longtime Post editor Marty Baron, who retired in 2021, was also dismayed by the news. “This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty. Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners),” he texted his former colleagues.

Earlier this week, a similar implosion took place at The Los Angeles Times after the paper issued its own non-endorsement for the 2024 race. Earlier this month the Times’ billioniare owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, pulled the plug on plans by the editorial staff to endorse Harris. As a result, Times Editorials Editor Mariel Garza handed in her resignation on Wednesday. “I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

The New York Times endorsed Harris in September, calling her the “only patriotic choice” for president. Rolling Stone also endorsed Harris in September, noting that she is “a lifelong, dedicated public servant who believes that government exists to help and protect the American people” and that Trump is “demonstrably unfit to ever hold office again.”


The Washington Post ends backing presidential candidates as paper says Bezos axed Harris endorsement

Daniel Arkin
Sat, October 26, 2024 

The Washington Post has endorsed a presidential contender in every general election since 1992. Not this year.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways


The Washington Post's editorial board will not make a presidential endorsement this year or "in any future presidential election," the newspaper's publisher and chief executive announced Friday.

Post editorial page staff members had drafted an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris that had yet to be published, two sources briefed on the sequence of events told The Post. The decision not to publish the Harris endorsement was made by The Post’s owner, billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, according to the sources. NBC News has not independently verified that account.

"We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way," Will Lewis said in a statement about the decision published on The Post's website.

"We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects," Lewis added in the statement, which has been met with more than 9,000 reader comments. "We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president."

In a statement, Post chief communications officer Kathy Baird said: “This was a Washington Post decision to not endorse, and I would refer you to the publisher’s statement in full.”

In a subsequent statement on Saturday, Lewis said that the newspaper's owner was not involved in the decision, and he, as publisher, believes that endorsements are unnecessary.

"We are an independent newspaper and should support our readers’ ability to make up their own minds," Lewis said.

The Post has endorsed a presidential contender in every general election since 1992. Lewis said his newsroom is "going back to" the practice of not formally backing White House aspirants, explaining that The Post did not make an endorsement during various presidential campaigns, including in 1960 or 1972.

The move was immediately blasted by Marty Baron, who edited The Post from 2012 until his retirement in 2021. Baron portrayed the decision as an "invitation" for former President Donald Trump to intimidate Bezos, who purchased the newspaper for $250 million in 2013.

"This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty. @realdonaldtrump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others)," Baron said in a post on the social media platform X. "Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."

Trump sharply criticized Bezos during his presidency and derided the newspaper as "The Fake News Washington Post." He has repeatedly assailed the news media over the last eight years, sometimes referring to the American press as the "enemy of the people." In the first year of Trump's term, the newspaper adopted the slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness."

The non-endorsement drew backlash from Post employees past and present — including Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the legendary reporters who unearthed the Watergate scandal in the early 1970s.

"We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 11 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post's own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy," Woodward and Bernstein said in a joint statement.

"Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process," the two reporters added.

Eight columnists at The Post called the decision a "terrible mistake" in a one-paragraph opinion article published hours later.

"This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them," the columnists wrote.

The leaders of the Washington Post Guild, which represents members of the newsroom, said in a statement on social media that it was "deeply concerned" by the decision. "This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers' trust, not losing it," the statement said.

X and other social media platforms lit up with posts from users who said they had canceled their subscriptions to The Post.

Lewis' announcement came days after news broke that the Los Angeles Times would not endorse Trump or Harris ahead of the Nov. 5 general election. The news website Semafor reported that the newspaper was preparing to back Harris, but owner Patrick Soon-Shiong blocked the editorial page from getting behind either candidate. (NBC News has not independently verified that report.)

In response, Mariel Garza, the editorials editor of the Los Angeles Times, resigned Wednesday. In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review, Garza said in part: "I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up."

Soon-Shiong, in a post on X on Wednesday, said in part that the editorial board was "provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation."

"In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being President for the next four years," he added. "Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision."

Shortly after The Post announced its decision, Soon-Shiong tweeted a screenshot of an article about the news.

The Washington Post is one of the most storied publications in the nation. The newspaper led the way on coverage of the Watergate scandal and won a Pulitzer Prize for public service for coverage of the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The Post endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016 and President Joe Biden in 2020. In the 2016 opinion piece, the editorial board called Trump a "bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America’s enemies."

"As president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world," the editorial board wrote.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com




WaPo Publisher Cops the Blame to Defend Jeff Bezos

Corbin Bolies
Sat, October 26, 2024 

Washington Post Publisher, William Lewis and Jeff Bezos

Washington Post CEO Will Lewis took the fall on Saturday for Jeff Bezos' decision to end the Post’s endorsements of presidential candidates, saying in a new statement he himself didn’t believe in presidential endorsements.

“Reporting around the role of The Washington Post owner and the decision not to publish a presidential endorsement has been inaccurate,“ Lewis said. ”He was not sent, did not read and did not opine on any draft. As Publisher, I do not believe in presidential endorsements. We are an independent newspaper and should support our readers’ ability to make up their own minds.”

The statement came after multiple reports indicated Bezos had ordered the paper not to make an endorsement—a mere 11 days before the 2024 election, and after multiple states had already begun early voting.



A draft of a Kamala Harris endorsement had already been in the works. Lewis pleaded with Bezos not to end the Post‘s recent precedent of endorsing presidential candidates, which it has done for nearly every election since 1976. Bezos refused, and it was Lewis—not Bezos—who announced the decision on Friday.

The shock announcement roiled staff across the Post‘s news and opinion sides.

The Washington Post’s editor at large Robert Kagan resigned on Friday following the “Democracy Dies in Darkness” paper’s decision not to endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election.

More than a dozen Post columnists rebuked the decision in a column on Friday.



“It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love,” the columnists—including Post stalwarts Karen Tumulty, David Ignatius, and Jennifer Rubin—wrote. “This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020. There is no contradiction between The Post’s important role as an independent newspaper and its practice of making political endorsements, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of core beliefs."

Other Post legends expressed the same. “We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 11 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy,” Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein said in a joint statement on Friday. “Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process.”




Washington Post reporter ‘heartbroken’ after mom cancels subscription over nixed Harris endorsement: ‘Hurting us, not our owner’

Jon Levine
Sat, October 26, 2024 

Washington Post reporter ‘heartbroken’ after mom cancels subscription over nixed Harris endorsement: ‘Hurting us, not our owner’

A mother’s love is more fickle than we thought.

A distraught Washington Post reporter took to X Saturday to reveal that her own mother had nixed her subscription to the paper to protest owner Jeff Bezos’ decision to not endorse Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race.

“My mom just told me she cancelled her subscription to The Washington Post. She reads every one of my stories. It was a heartbreaking call,” said Caroline Kitchener, who covers abortion issues for the paper.

“I understand why she did it,” the writer continued. “Post reporters had no part in this decision. But when you cancel, you are hurting us, not our owner …

“I completely understand if you’ve lost faith in our owner, but please, don’t lose faith in us.”

Washington Post reporter Caroline Kitchener’s mother dumped the paper to protest its failure to endorse Kamala Harris. x/CAKitchener

In an X thread, Kitchener said she made this case to her mother and “asked her to reconsider” — but offered no indication that her argument had been successful.

“The Washington Post’s abortion reporter was just rejected by her own mother,” conservative commentator Mark Hemingway quipped.

Bezos’ decision — which will also stand for “any future presidential election,” according to publisher Will Lewis — follows the Los Angeles Times, whose billionaire owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, also declined to issue an endorsement, leading to a flood of resignations from its editorial board.

The D.C. newspaper has been bleeding subscribers since the decision to drop presidential endorsements. Candice Tang/SOPA Images/Shutterstock

The decision from Bezos also led to a public temper tantrum by top editors and writers at the Washington Post.

“I didn’t sign up to be a journalist to be silent on what matters most. I didn’t come here to be a coward. Some of us really, truly believe in speaking truth to power. We were betrayed today,” Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah wrote on X Friday.

One WashPo editor, Robert Kagan, has already resigned over the decision, while 2,000 readers canceled their subscriptions within 24 hours, which one staffer said was “an unusually high number,” Semafor reported.

The 'Black Insurrectionist' was actually white. The deception did not stop there

BRIAN SLODYSKO
Updated Fri, October 25, 2024

 Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz arrive at a campaign rally in Philadelphia, Tuesday, Aug. 6, 2024. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — “Black Insurrectionist,” the anonymous social media persona behind some of the most widely circulated conspiracy theories about the 2024 election, can be traced to a man from upstate New York.

He's also white.

With a profile photo of a Black soldier and the tagline “I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS,” the account on the platform X amassed more than 300,000 followers while posting dubious claims about Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Some were amplified by former President Donald Trump, his running mate Ohio Sen. JD Vance, and their Republican allies in Congress. The most salacious claims have come in the closing weeks of the campaign.

Last month, the account posted what Black Insurrectionist claimed was an affidavit from an ABC News employee, alleging Harris was given questions in advance of the network’s debate with Trump — which ABC News vigorously disputed. Trump approved, though, declaring, “I love the person.” More recently, Black Insurrectionist posted a baseless claim alleging inappropriate behavior between Walz and a student decades ago, a falsehood that U.S. intelligence officials said sprang from a Russian disinformation campaign.

The reach that the Black Insurrectionist account attained with assistance from Trump and his allies demonstrates the ease with which unverified information from dubious sources can metastasize online to shape public opinion. The speed and scale of disinformation has been an animating force in the presidential campaign, with the potential to affect the outcome in a close election.

The Black Insurrectionist account is linked directly to Jason G. Palmer, who has his own questionable backstory, starting with the fact that he isn't Black, according to an Associated Press review of public records, open source data and interviews with a half-dozen people who interacted closely with Palmer over the past two decades. The records and personal accounts offer a portrait of an individual who has repeatedly been accused of defrauding business partners and lenders, has struggled with drug addiction and whose home was raided by the FBI over a decade ago. He also owes more than $6.7 million in back taxes to the state of New York.

“He's far from African American,” said Kathleen Albano, who said her deceased husband was involved in a failed business venture with Palmer.

In emails and phone conversations, Palmer, 51, made a series of seemingly contradictory claims about his ties to the account, which was deactivated last week several hours after the AP first reached out to Palmer for comment.

He acknowledged in an email that he was involved with the account, but said that he did not create it. He also claimed to have owned it at one point before selling it in April or May to a person who he declined to identify.

“I do not know what is going on with this account,” Palmer wrote in an email last Thursday.

But in an interview on Tuesday he said he participated in making claims about Walz that were posted to the account this month. And he suggested that he worked as a “researcher” with a broader group.

“We did that with big people. National people,” Palmer said. “I have no comment on anything else regarding that.”

He also said that the account was primarily operated by a friend of his who is Black. He repeatedly declined to identify who that was, or put the AP in touch with the person.

A spokesperson for X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, did not respond to a request for comment.

The AP traced the account to Palmer based on posts made by Black Insurrectionist that included biographical details about living in upstate New York, a screenname and an email address. Those details cross-referenced with information available online that the AP tracked down with assistance from Gisela Pérez de Acha, an open source reporting specialist for the Human Rights Center at University of California, Berkley.

A video posted in March by Black Insurrectionist shows a computer screen displaying the docket of Trump's election case in the Georgia. His initials “JP” are visible in an icon on the web browser’s toolbar. And Palmer's email address can be seen in the corner of the screen, indicating that he used it to log into the state's online court system.

The email address is linked to a phone number, according to opensource data provider Osint.Industries, that is listed for Palmer in New York court records. The same email is also linked to a Skype account with the username “jg palmrt,” according to the opensource data provider Epieos. Palmer’s middle initial is “G.”

Palmer also used similar iterations of the email address in the past, according to court records.

A separate Black Insurrectionist post on X from January 2024 complained about Microsoft Network's content moderation policies and included a screenshot revealing that an individual with the username “jg palmrt” had posted a comment on a news story that was censored by MSN.

The suggestion that Palmer was involved with an account that spread falsehoods about the upcoming election was not a surprise to those who have had business and personal dealings with Palmer over the past two decades.

“He owes me a ton of money,” said Albano, whose late husband had a business relationship with Palmer. “He has a way of roping people in. I always had his number. I knew exactly who he was. But unfortunately my husband got caught up in a lot of those dealings."

Albano said Palmer purchased a Webster, New York, home from her and her husband but failed to make payments. She said Palmer talked her husband into a investment venture to recoup the money, which also ended poorly.

"None of it materialized ever," Albano said.

Unlike other Palmer business associates, Albano said the couple chose not to sue because "you can't get blood from a stone.”

Palmer denied Albano's account. He said that Albano’s late husband was his accountant and that he paid off a mortgage on the home. He denied that they ever had extensive business dealings.

In the mid-2000s, Palmer embarked on a real estate venture, buying up commercial properties in downtown Rochester. It ended with a string of lawsuits from creditors and former business partners, seeking tens of millions of dollars in unpaid loans and assets. Palmer blamed his troubles with the venture, in part, on an opioid addiction he had at the time.

Some former business partners alleged Palmer tried to seize control of buildings using documents with their signatures forged, according to court records.

In a 2020 case in Oneida County, New York, a forensic specialist conducted a detailed analysis of a document signing over an apartment complex to a company in which Palmer held a stake. The specialist concluded that “the evidence indicates that the signatures and the notary seal” were produced “by way of cut and paste or digital manipulation.”

Palmer said that it was actually his former business partner, William Mendick, who had defrauded him. The case, which was brought by Palmer, was dismissed in 2022.

Maureen Bass, a bankruptcy attorney in Rochester, said she wasn't shocked by Palmer's connection to an X account spreading conspiracy theories. Bass represented Wells Fargo in a commercial foreclosure case against Palmer and recalled that he once sent her old firm a lengthy email “manifesto” that accused local government officials of conspiring against him.

“It was rambling. He had been a victim of the ‘Axis of Evil.’ Politicians had done things to him, and had taken his assets," Bass said. “So this doesn't surprise me."

MAGA’s ‘Black Insurrectionist’ Conspiracy Freak Unmasked

Liam Archacki
Fri, October 25, 2024 

The person behind the “Black Insurrectionist” X account, which widely spread pernicious and baseless conspiracy theories about Kamala Harris and Tim Walz ahead of the election, was a white man from upstate New York with a history of fraud, the Associated Press reported.

The account featured a profile photo of a Black soldier and the tagline “I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS” and had amassed over 300,000 followers before it vanished a week ago. In the weeks and months leading up to the election, Black Insurrectionist had peddled disparaging allegations, based on disinformation, against Harris and Walz, some of which were endorsed by Donald Trump and JD Vance.

Last month, the account posted what would have been a bombshell if it were true—an affidavit allegedly from an ABC News employee saying that Harris was given questions ahead of time in her debate on the network against Trump. ABC vehemently denied the allegation.

Donald Trump and JD Vance amplified some of the baseless conspiracies featured on the Black Insurrectionist account.

Trump, however, approved, declaring of Black Insurrectionist, “I love the person,” AP reported.

In the week before the account disappeared on Oct. 17, Black Insurrectionist had pushed a false claim that Walz had an inappropriate relationship with a student years before. U.S. intelligence officials said the lie originated from a Russian disinformation campaign.

Now, using public records, AP has tied the account to Jason G. Palmer, a white man from upstate New York. Palmer’s race is only where the controversy begins, however.

AP’s investigation, which also relied on interviews with people who know Palmer, uncovered that the 52-year-old has been accused of defrauding his business partners, struggled with drug addiction, owes over $6.7 million in back taxes, and had his home raided by the FBI a decade ago.

“He’s far from African American,” Kathleen Albano, whose late husband was a business partner of Palmer, told AP.

Palmer himself gave mixed explanations to AP about his relationship to the account.

When the outlet first reached out by email—hours after which the account disappeared—Palmer said he had been involved in it but did not create it, and that he had sold it to someone else, whom he did not identify, in April or May.

“I do not know what is going on with this account,” Palmer wrote last Thursday in an email to AP.

Palmer gave mixed accounts of his relationship to the account.

On Tuesday, though, he told AP in an interview that he was involved in making the false claims about Walz this month. He explained that he was a “researcher” as part of a larger group.

He also said that the account was mainly run by his friend, who is Black.

People who knew Palmer were not surprised that he was linked to an account that spread misinformation.

“He owes me a ton of money,” said Albano. “He has a way of roping people in. I always had his number. I knew exactly who he was. But unfortunately my husband got caught up in a lot of those dealings.”

Maureen Bass, an attorney who represented Wells Fargo in a foreclosure case against Palmer, remembered that he emailed her firm a “manifesto” in which he alleged that local government officials were conspiring against him.

“It was rambling. He had been a victim of the ‘Axis of Evil.’ Politicians had done things to him, and had taken his assets,” Bass said. “So this doesn’t surprise me.”

Fact check: Trump revives his lie that schools are secretly sending children for gender-affirming surgeries

Daniel Dale, CNN
Sat, October 26, 2024 



Former President Donald Trump continues to repeat his lie that US schools are sending children for gender-affirming surgeries without their parents’ consent — even though his own presidential campaign could not find a single example of this having happened.

Trump debuted the tale in late August. It was debunked by CNN and others in early September. But Trump, whose campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars on late-campaign attack ads related to transgender people, has revived the story in October as Election Day draws near.

Trump made the claim again last week while discussing education policy during a New York City barbershop discussion filmed by Fox News: “No transgender, no operations — you know, they take your kid — there are some places, your boy leaves for school, comes back a girl. Okay? Without parental consent.” He added, “At first, when I was told that was actually happening, I said, you know, it’s an exaggeration. No: it happens. It happens. There are areas where it happens.”

Trump didn’t name these supposed “areas.” But he made the claim once more during his Friday interview with prominent podcast host Joe Rogan: “Who would want to have — there’s so many — the transgender operations: where they’re allowed to take your child when he goes to school and turn him into a male — to a female — without parental consent.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim remains false. There is no evidence that schools in any part of the United States have sent children for gender-affirming surgeries without their parents’ approval, or performed unapproved gender-affirming surgeries on site; none of that is “allowed” anywhere in the country. Even in the states where gender-affirming surgery is legal for people under age 18, parental consent is required before a minor can undergo such a procedure.

Trump’s campaign and four conservative groups contacted by CNN in September about Trump’s claim were unable to find any evidence for it. Experts on health care for transgender people said the situation Trump described simply does not happen in this country.

Landon Hughes, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and a co-author of a recent study on the prevalence of gender-affirming surgery in the US, said in a September email: “There are no instances of children receiving surgeries or access to surgeries from their schools.” Hughes added: “No provider in the US would perform surgery on a minor under the direction of a school, let alone without parental consent.”




“Of course everything in this statement is false,” Dr. Meredithe McNamara, an adolescent medicine physician at the Yale School of Medicine, said in a September email. “Of course surgery of any kind happens in a qualified medical center and not in a school. Of course parents are the medical decision-makers for their kids, especially when it comes to gender-affirming care.”

For minors, parental consent is also required in the US for non-surgical gender-affirming medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Various guidelines and standards for medical care of transgender adolescents from entities including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health explain that parental consent is needed.

“Any gender-affirming medical care or surgical care would legally require the consent of (both) parents/legal guardians and assent of an adolescent under 18,” Dr. Laura Taylor, medical director of the gender-affirming care program at the University of Southern California, said in a September email. “This includes puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery.”

There are no definitive national figures on the number of minors who receive gender-affirming surgeries, which include breast or chest procedures, often called “top surgery,” and genital reconstructive procedures, often called “bottom surgery.” But the limited available data makes it clear that the vast majority of such surgeries occur among adults.

Taylor outlined a lengthy process before a minor might undergo a gender-affirming surgery.

“In adolescents, the decision to start hormones and/or have surgery would happen after consultation with an interdisciplinary team for a psychosocial assessment,” she said, the bold type hers. “The assessment includes understanding the dysphoria related to gender incongruence (the distress caused by the physical characteristics that do not match the person’s identity), how long it has been present, excluding other reasons to account for the dysphoria, and making sure the adolescent and family can provide informed consent.”

Asked in September for any evidence for Trump’s claim that schools are secretly obtaining gender-affirming surgeries for children, Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt provided none. Instead, she sent a series of articles on the broader debate over how schools handle gender identity issues.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

AURORA, COLORADO THE REAL STORY

They came to America looking for better lives — and better schools. The results were mixed

Alisson Ramírez, right, listens to her social studies teacher during class Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2024, in Aurora, Colo. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)ASSOCIATED PRESS

Dylan Martínez-Ramírez sharpens his pencil before heading to school Thursday, Aug. 29, 2024, in Aurora, Colo. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)ASSOCIATED PRESS

BIANCA VÁZQUEZ TONESS
Sat, October 26, 2024

AURORA, Colo. (AP) — Starting seventh grade at her first American school, facing classes taught entirely in English, Alisson Ramirez steeled herself for rejection and months of feeling lost.

“I was nervous that people would ask me things and I wouldn’t know how to answer,” the Venezuelan teen says. “And I would be ashamed to answer in Spanish.”

But it wasn’t quite what she expected. On her first day in Aurora Public Schools in Colorado this past August, many of her teachers translated their classes’ relevant vocabulary into Spanish and handed out written instructions in Spanish. Some teachers even asked questions such as “terminado?” or “preguntas?” — Are you done? Do you have questions? One promised to study more Spanish to better support Alisson.


“That made me feel better,” says Alisson, 13.

Outside the classrooms, it’s a different story. While that school system is striving to accommodate more than 3,000 new students mostly from Venezuela and Colombia, the city government has taken the opposite approach. City Council has tried to dissuade Venezuelan immigrants from moving to Aurora by vowing not to spend any money helping newcomers. Officials plan to investigate the nonprofits who helped migrants settle in the Denver suburb.

When Aurora’s mayor spread unfounded claims of Venezuelan gangs taking over an apartment complex there, former president and current GOP candidate Donald Trump magnified the claims at his campaign rallies, calling Aurora a “war zone.” Immigrants are “poisoning” schools in Aurora and elsewhere with disease, he has said. “They don’t even speak English.”

Trump has promised that Aurora, population 400,000, will be one of the first places he launches his program to deport migrants if he’s elected.



This is life as a newcomer to the United States in 2024, home of the “American dream” and conflicting ideas about who can achieve it. Migrants arriving in this polarized country find themselves bewildered by its divisions.

Many came looking for better lives for their families. Now, they question whether this is even a good place to raise their children.

Rumors make life harder for immigrants in Aurora

Of course, it’s not always clear to Alisson’s family that they live in a discrete city called Aurora, with its own government and policies that differ from those of neighboring Denver and other suburbs. One thing has seemed obvious to her mother, Maria Angel Torres, 43, as she moves around Aurora and Denver looking for work or running errands: While some organizations and churches are eager to help, some people are deeply afraid of her and her family,



The fear first became apparent on a routine trip to the grocery store back in the spring. Torres was standing in line holding a jug of milk and other items when she moved a little too close to the young woman in front of her. The woman — a teen who spoke Spanish with an American accent — told Torres to keep her distance.

“It was humiliating,” says Torres. “I don’t look like a threat. But people here act like they feel terrorized.”

And when Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman — and then Trump — started talking about Venezuelan gangs taking over an apartment and the entire city of Aurora, Torres didn’t understand. While she didn’t believe that gangs had “taken over,” she worried that any bad press about Venezuelans would affect her and her family.

Keeping out dangerous people is important to Torres. The whole reason her family left Venezuela was to escape lawlessness and violence. They didn’t want it to follow them here.



In addition to Alisson, Torres has an older daughter — Gabriela Ramirez, 27. Ramirez’s partner, Ronexi Bocaranda, 37, owned a food truck selling hot dogs and hamburgers. Bocaranda says government workers in Venezuela extorted a bribe from him known as a “vacuna,” or vaccine, because paying it ensures protection from harassment. He paid them the equivalent of $500, about half a week’s earnings, to continue operating.

The next week, when Bocaranda refused to pay, the government workers stabbed him in the bicep; the one-inch scar remains visible on his left arm. The men threatened to kill Ramirez and her young son, who were both at the food truck that day. Bocaranda sold the business, and the family, including Torres and Alisson, all fled to Colombia.

A little over two years later, the family headed north on foot through the Darién Gap. In Mexico, they crossed the border in Juarez and turned themselves in to U.S. Border Patrol. They all have deportation hearings in 2025, where they will have the opportunity to plead their case for asylum based on the threats against Bocaranda, Ramirez and her son. In the meantime, they have settled in Aurora, after hearing about the Denver area from a family who helped them on their journey to the U.S.

Torres and her daughter tried to get their kids into school soon after they arrived in Aurora in February, but they were confused by the vaccination requirements. Could the kids enter school with the vaccinations they received in Venezuela and Colombia, or would they have to get all new shots? Would they have to pay for each one, potentially costing hundreds of dollars per child?



Alisson and Dylan stayed home for months. Dylan played math or first-person shooter games. Alisson watched crafting videos on TikTok. When they finally entered school in the fall, Gabriela Ramirez and Torres both hoped instruction would be in English, believing their children would learn the language faster that way.

Times have changed in Aurora

If they’d arrived in Aurora, say, three years ago, that might have been what they encountered.

Aurora is accustomed to educating immigrants’ children. More than a third of residents speak a language other than English at home, according to the 2020 U.S. Census. Immigrants and refugees have been attracted to Aurora’s proximity to Denver and its relatively lower cost of living.



But the sudden arrival of so many students from Venezuela and Colombia who didn’t speak English caught some Aurora schools off guard. Before, a teacher in the 38,000-student school system might have had one or two newcomer students in her class. Now, teachers in some schools have as many as 10, or a third of their classroom roster.

When Marcella Garcia visited classrooms where only English was spoken, she noticed the newcomers weren’t talking. “Kids were being left out and not able to engage,” says Garcia, principal at Aurora Hills Middle School.

The schools reached out for advice and training from the district’s central office, which recommended a strategy called “translanguaging.” That means using Spanish at times to help students make meaning of the English lessons and conversations happening around them.

It’s not clear how much it’s helping students learn — it’s too soon to tell — or if the school is striking the right balance between translating for newcomers and forcing them to engage in what teachers call a “friendly struggle” to understand and learn English.



But the approach has helped Alisson feel more at ease. On her first day of school, her social studies teacher, a bald man with tattooed forearms and a gruff teaching persona, didn’t translate anything or use Spanish in his presentation. “I thought about sitting there and not saying anything,” Alisson remembers. “But then I thought, 'I’m here to learn.’”

She and a friend approached the teacher during class. Now Jake Emerson is one of her favorite teachers.

On a Wednesday in September, Alisson and her friends were sitting at a round table in the back of Emerson’s class. They spoke Spanish among themselves as Emerson spoke to the rest of the class about the drawing he was projecting on the large screen in the front of the class.

It was a scene from an ancient Egyptian marketplace. “What do you think this dude here is doing with the basket?” Emerson asked the class. The students at Alisson’s table kept talking, even as Emerson spoke. One girl who’d been in Aurora schools longer than the rest translated for Alisson and the other teens.



Before the school adopted this new approach, teachers may have shut down a conversation among students in Spanish. “If I saw two students speaking Spanish, I assumed they were off topic,” says Assistant Principal John Buch. Now, he says students are encouraged to help each other in any language they can.

So far, there appears to be little public pushback in the district against this approach. It generally requires more work for teachers, who have to translate materials or their own speech in real time.

While teachers try out new Spanish vocabulary, English-speaking students show a range of responses. Some seem bored or annoyed by their teachers’ sudden interest in speaking Spanish in class. Bilingual students appear proud when they can help teachers trying to use more Spanish in class.

Still, some English-speaking and bilingual students have harassed Alisson. A few weeks after school started, a group of boys tried to stop her from sitting in her seat in class. They called her ugly and told her to go back to her country. When Alisson reported this to a teacher, nothing changed. “They say they don’t tolerate bullying,” she says. “But this is bullying.” Weeks later, the boys eventually stopped.



It's a delicate situation for both teachers and students

After spending most of the day in mainstream classes, Alisson and her newcomer peers let loose in a class called Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Education. It’s the only class explicitly designed to help new immigrants speak English.

The teacher, Melissa Wesdyk, does not speak fluent Spanish. She recently started using Google Translate at times, as a simultaneous interpreter. She speaks her instructions into her laptop, and a slightly robotic voice says the instructions in Spanish.

The same is not available in Amharic or Farsi, languages spoken by two of the more than two dozen students in the class. For those two, she translates the instructions in writing and projects the words on a screen in the front of the room.

Wesdyk rarely smiles and remains serious as she runs the class. Perhaps that’s because the students are far more unruly than in Alisson’s others. Wesdyk acknowledges the relative chaos, but says it’s because the Spanish-speaking students are more comfortable in a class that’s almost exclusively Latin American immigrants.

One boy keeps standing on his chair during the lesson, and Wesdyk stops class at least four times to redirect him. “Por qué hablas?” she asks him. Why are you talking? Another time she says, “I need you to stop.”

The course also demands more of the students, whom Wesdyk presses into pronouncing words in unison and answering questions. It’s hard work, and her methods don’t always hit their mark.

Toward the end of the class, Wesdyk tells the class they are going to do a “whipshare.” Google doesn’t know how to translate that, so it just repeats the word in English. Each student is to share one of the words they wrote earlier, when the class was identifying English words for each letter of the alphabet.

When Alisson offers the word “pink” for the letter P, Wesdyk appears surprised and a little flustered. “That’s not one of the words I wrote down, but good word.”

For the letter F, another boy says “flor,” as in Spanish for flower. To observers, he seems to be trying to say “flower,” but mispronouncing it. Wesdyk doesn’t appear to understand. “Floor?” she says back to him. The boy repeats “flor,” and Wesdyk says, “Floor?” emphasizing the English R sound. The boy looks embarrassed.

In mid-September, Alisson’s mother receives messages from Aurora Public Schools that there have been rumors of bomb threats at its schools and others across the state. It’s not clear if the threats are related to Trump’s rhetoric about Venezuelan gangs taking over Aurora. After all, similar problems ensued after his false comments about pet-eating Haitians in Springfield, Ohio.

The school system’s messages say there is no truth to the bomb threat rumors, but that doesn’t make Torres and Alisson feel better. Torres still sends Allison to school, despite her fear. She’s learned she can get in trouble if Alisson misses class without a good excuse, and Alisson is generally happy at school.

But neither of them understands how American schools and children could become a target, even if it’s just a rumor.

“This doesn’t happen in my country,” says Torres.

Venezuela’s economy and democracy may be in shambles, says Torres, but no one there would think of threatening children at school.

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.