/commentisfree

  • I spent five years in Iran’s notorious Evin prison but when Israel bombed it I felt horror and fear
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/24/five-years-iran-evin-prison-israel-bombed-fear

    Bombarder la.prison Evin n’est pas comme bombarder Auschwitz.

    24.6.2025 by Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe - Many held there are opponents of the repressive regime. Who is alive now? Who was killed? Were they just collateral damage?

    On Monday morning Israeli airstrikes struck the Evin prison’s gate, damaging the court adjacent to the prison and some of the wards, including the women’s political ward where I spent five years. The prison holds a large number of political prisoners and opponents of the Islamic Republic in Iran. Nobody seems to know what has happened to them.

    Since the bombing of Iran started 12 days ago, I have avoided the news and all requests for interviews. It has felt too sad. But as I was sitting at my desk, I saw the news about Evin popping up on my screen. My hands froze and I felt a shiver down my neck, just as when bad news landed back when I was held. After a couple of minutes I contacted my former Evin cellmates who are now outside to check if they knew anything. They were as horrified and scared as I was.

    We tried to get in touch with any of the families of prisoners we could find, to confirm their safety, but it was impossible. The ceiling had collapsed, there were reports of injuries and there were families shouting outside the walls. The UK does not even know how many British citizens are held in Evin, or where they have been moved. Meanwhile, Iran has started a tighter crackdown on civilians, including cutting the internet and making more arrests. Days are numb with helplessness and outrage.

    When I was in prison, we experienced earthquakes, twice. There were power cuts as a result and we had to sit in the dark. Candles were not allowed and the emergency power rarely worked. It was horrid. Some women sat together praying, some sat in morbid silence. It felt as if we had died and we were praying over our own deaths. It felt as if anything could happen to us at that moment and there was no rescue. Prisoners are not a priority to the outside world when disasters come, but their lives matter to their loved ones.

    Watching those prison doors being blown off felt surreal. I have walked in and out of that gate so many times, being taken to court or hospital, and always dreamed of the day when they would finally be opened and all prisoners would be set free from that place of oppression. So bringing down those gates might have seemed like a symbolic act for faraway media. But it did not feel like it made anyone safe inside. If anything, it took away lives. The crackdown from the Iranian authorities keen to reaffirm control feels as if it has only just begun.

    The Iranian people have suffered decades of crimes by the Islamic Republic, which has violated their basic human rights, incarcerated thousands of people and executed many for standing up for themselves. Many of those are in Evin.

    Back in 2022, I had a similar feeling when Evin was set on fire shortly after my freedom. It wasn’t joy but fear. I was desperate to get some news about my friends held there, terrified that something terrible would happen to them even as the prison burned. I asked a friend whose house overlooked Evin to video-call me and face the phone screen towards the window so that I could see the prison with my own eyes. There was no comfort in the flames, just fear of what was to come.

    For so many of my family and friends, it is that same fear now, watching the games of governments we do not trust and the demonstrations of power with a sudden silencing of the protections of law. As Iran falls apart, it is vulnerable people who are most exposed.

    Over the past 12 days, we have all been glued to our phones hoping that what we saw was just a wild nightmare we would wake up from. It has been a shock. It started as unlawful bombing of Iran by Israel, though no one seemed to say it was unlawful. It has now escalated into a proper war against Iran with US intervention and the rhetoric of regime change. The mission creep has been unnerving, even for those of us who have suffered at the hands of the Iranian regime. The silence of the international community, including the UK, on this point has been worrying.

    During my hostage case the UK’s reluctance to acknowledge the law and legal rights was frustrating for our family. But right now, the consequences are much greater. We run the risk of things getting much worse.

    When I returned to Britain, Keir Starmer was one of the first people to greet me and get a picture. Two years ago he invited me to his Westminster office with other British-Iranian women’s activists on International Women’s Day and promised that his government would stand up for human rights in Iran. In opposition, there was no equivocation. But in government, there has been much more equivocation around the UK’s commitment to international law. Even yesterday there was a dangerous reluctance from Starmer’s ministers to criticise the illegality of allies joining in Israel’s war on Iran. The consequences are felt all around Tehran by families caught between a bomb and a hard place. They have felt very alone.

    If Evin taught me anything, it was that freedom does not come from bombs and brutality, nor from clever stunts for the cameras. It lies in human connection and empathy. People in Iran, people across the Middle East – in prison and outside – could do with a bit more of that now.

    Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is a British-Iranian dual national who was detained in Evin prison for five years

    #Iran #Teheran #Israel #guerre #prison

  • What did you do during the genocide in Gaza ? - Arwa Mahdawi
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/22/israel-gaza-genocide

    It seems likely that all this horror will eventually be pinned on Benjamin Netanyahu while others try to absolve themselves of blame. But this isn’t just Netanyahu’s genocide. This is the Biden-Harris genocide; the Trump-Vance genocide; the Keir Starmer and David Lammy genocide. It is Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella’s genocide. This is the mainstream media’s genocide. The list goes on.

    We would not be where we are today were it not for the systematic dehumanization of Palestinians by the western media and the suppression of pro-Palestinian speech. We would not be here if western reporters and Joe Biden hadn’t manufactured consent for the genocide by repeating the incendiary lie that Hamas had beheaded babies. We would not be here if the Biden administration had actually worked towards a ceasefire instead of lying about their efforts and giving Israel carte blanche to do whatever it liked.

  • Trump and Musk have ushered in the era of cataclysm capitalism. But I have a plan to counter it | Julia Steinberger | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/02/donald-trump-elon-musk-capitalism-us-democracy
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/feedd7fc0616db9bd67124be8dfade1021ce117a/0_226_8256_4954/master/8256.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-ali

    Cataclysm capitalism is the worthy heir to neoliberalism and its disaster capitalism. As Naomi Klein described in her book The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal economic ideology took advantage of crises to deregulate and privatise public services, hobble trade unions and civil society, and generally create conditions ideal for private wealth accumulation and disastrous for equality, work and welfare. Cataclysm capitalism does all this, and goes further. The pace of change is accelerated, the dismantling of public institutions more complete, the attack on democracy more overt. Perhaps the most frightening aspect is that the industries laughing in the face of planetary and social destruction have made a clear calculus: they don’t need prosperous economies to profit. Neoliberalism at least claimed to be serving a form of greater good via winner-takes-all market competition. Cataclysm capitalism dispenses with this illusion altogether.

    The fossil fuel companies, the rightwing tech magnates and the financial companies hurrying in their wake have somehow convinced themselves that they don’t need prosperous economies to prosper themselves. They have learned to profit from disruption and destruction. They know from experience that immiserated populations will endure exploitative working conditions and go deep into debt to keep themselves and their families alive.

    Paradoxically, the creation of vast economic insecurity favours far-right politics. Voters in a constant state of fear and stress, without a clear understanding of the system creating hardships, are an easy prey for far-right rhetoric blaming migrants, woke and trans people. Sadly, since neoliberal ideology has devoured previously centre-left parties (UK Labour and US Democrats), we are left with much less of an organised opposition, and much more of a pipeline to accelerating disaster.

    The picture is grim. We are faced with an organised hostile takeover of democracy, coupled with a dismantling of the economy in favour of the sectors and industries most beneficial to the fossil-fuel and tech magnates, to our detriment and the detriment of all life on Earth. What can we do? I propose a three-pronged plan, short and schematic – enough to get started.

  • As a geneticist, I will not mourn 23andMe and its jumble of useless health information | Adam Rutherford | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/27/geneticist-mourn-23andme-useless-health-information
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7b399b22cc88685be26bd8c319c5656a08fd51f8/0_135_4000_2401/master/4000.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-ali

    23andMe provided information purporting to be about your personal health and ancestry. All you had to do was spit in a tube and give them some money, and in return you’d get a very glossy map of your genetic genealogy, and some info on the probability that you like the taste of coriander, or your skin flushes when you’re drunk, or whether you have sticky or wet earwax, or your eye colour – things you might have already known, if you have ever looked in a mirror, or stuck your finger in your ear. If you look carefully, they did give solid info on the science underlying the results, but who reads the small print?

    Your DNA is your most private data. The billions of letters of genetic code in your cells are unique to you, and always will be, in the whole history and future of humankind, even if you are an identical twin. It contains the history of your family, of our species, and of life on Earth. It harbours the most personal conceivable information about your family, your life and health. And that is what 23andMe wanted.

    The company has just filed for bankruptcy, and this does not sadden me. It didn’t invent direct-to-consumer genomics, but it made big data big business. The genius of its business model was not simply to get you to volunteer this personal data to a private company, but to persuade you to actually pay to give it to them. It then commercialised your DNA by selling it on to pharmaceutical companies, which would use it to develop drugs, ultimately for profit. It was the type of racket that a mob boss might look on and say: “And this is legal?” There was always an opportunity to opt out, but most people did not, because who reads the small print? And what did you get in exchange? A scientific trinket.

    But the main interest came from people who thought they were paying to answer the nebulous question of where they came from. The trouble is: it’s an empty promise. There is no method for identifying the geographical origin of your ancestors using genetics. Your ancestors about 50 generations back are from all over the world, and besides, biology does not bestow membership to a tribe or clan or people or country. What 23andMe was actually doing was comparing your DNA to that of other paying customers, and matching up where they live today, and inferring that you have ancestors in that location. It kind of works, but is mostly meaningless. When the data lets you believe that you are 37% German, or 18% Spanish, or whatever, it might feel fun, but of course there is no way of being 37% German. White supremacists loved this type of service too because – locked into their scientifically ignorant ideology – they believed it would reveal some sort of racial purity. Even when testing uncovered previously unknown ancestry from people they deem inferior, they would often attribute the results to a Jewish conspiracy.

    As for the health information it provided, the results are also of profoundly limited use, because the tests are not designed to diagnose medical conditions, and the genetic variants anaylsed as part of the service are derived from population-level statistics, which are not particularly informative to individuals. I discovered that I have a genetic variant that at a population level is associated with a slightly higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. Knowing this neither bothers me nor has prompted a change in my behaviour. It does not mean that I will get Alzheimer’s, and if you don’t have that same variant it doesn’t mean you won’t.

    DNA is not fate. 23andMe was trading on ignorance of how the genome actually works, and perpetuating a deterministic view of genetics that is outmoded and wrong.

    Dr Adam Rutherford is a lecturer in genetics at UCL and the author of How to Argue With a Racist

    #23andMe #Médecine_personalisée #Data_breach

  • #Tufts_University student #Rumeysa_Ozturk held by ICE in Louisiana, protesters demand release

    Hundreds of people gathered at Powder House Park on Wednesday, to demand the release of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish PHD student at Tufts University, who was arrested by federal agents Tuesday night.

    The 30-year-old graduate student and Fulbright Scholar was detained Tuesday by federal agents in Somerville. A representative of the Department of Homeland Security said the student “engaged in activities in support of Hamas.” She’s now being held at an ICE Detention Center in Central Louisiana.

    “The university campus should absolutely be a place for the free and open exchange of ideas and the fact that someone can just be disappeared into the abyss for voicing an idea is absolutely horrifying,” said rally attendee Sam Wachman.

    Detained on #Somerville sidewalk

    A neighbor’s surveillance video showed the moments Ozturk was cornered by about six plain clothes ICE agents on her Somerville sidewalk, then handcuffed and taken away.

    City leaders in neighboring Medford, where the university is located, joined the rally after seeing the video.

    “This is the exactly the wrong thing for America. This is the wrong thing for Medford. I know it’s not what our community stands for and I think we need to really see robust action from the state government here in Massachusetts to say that we’re not going to let this happen here,” said Medford City Council president Zac Bears.

    Officials with the Department of Homeland Security say DHS and ICE investigations found Ozturk engaged in activities supporting Hamas. “A visa is a privilege not a right. Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be terminated. This is commonsense security,” said a DHS spokesperson.
    Ozturk wrote op-ed in Tufts Daily

    It comes as the Trump administration is cracking down on college students who’ve voiced support for the pro-Palestinian movement. Rally organizers say last year Ozturk helped write an op-ed in the Tufts Daily calling for the university to acknowledge genocide in Palestine and separate from companies with ties to Israel.

    “This should be a safe haven for international students,” said Wachman. “Boston is a hub of international thought and it’s known for its universities and if the Trump administration is going to essentially kneecap Boston by making international students feel unsafe here, I mean that’s something we can’t just sit back and watch.”

    “What they’re saying, and reality have no bearing, they’ll just say anything as long as they get the result which they want which is to create an environment of fear,” said rally attendee David Fleig. “There’s no respect for the law there’s no respect for diversity, there’s no respect for our Bill of Rights- where is it going to end?”

    Ozturk’s attorney says no charges have been filed against her.

    The attorney also filed a writ of habeas corpus petition to get Ozturk released, and the judge has given immigration officials until Friday to respond.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/tufts-university-student-rumeysa-ozturk-detained-protest

    #doctorante #étudiante #USA #répression #Etats-Unis #trumpisme #arrestation #déportation #renvoi #expulsion #étudiants_étrangers #ESR #université #facs #censure

    • Ordre a été donné de ne garder que des crétins haineux qui ne savent pas lire, seulement alimentés par sonde en foxnews burger et soda.
      De très bons électeurs pour les fascistes.

    • The US government is effectively kidnapping people for opposing genocide

      Rumeysa Ozturk, a visa holder, was snatched off the streets by Ice agents and sent to a detention center 1,000 miles away for opposing war crimes in Gaza

      The abductors wore masks because they do not want their identities known. On Tuesday evening, Rumeysa Ozturk exited her apartment building and walked on to the street in Somerville, Massachusetts – a city outside Boston – into the fading daylight. Ozturk, a Turkish-born PhD student at Tufts University who studies children’s media and childhood development, was on her way to an iftar dinner with friends, planning to break her Ramadan fast.

      In a video taken from a surveillance camera, she wears a pink hijab and a long white puffer coat against the New England cold. The first man, not uniformed but wearing plain clothes, as all the agents are, approaches her as if asking for directions. But he quickly closes in and grabs her by the wrists she has raised defensively toward her face.

      She screams as another man appears behind her, pulling a badge out from under his shirt and snatching away her phone. Soon six people are around her in a tight circle; she has no way to escape. They handcuff her and hustle her into an unmarked van. Attorneys for Ozturk did not know where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice), the US homeland security department that has become Trump’s anti-immigrant secret police, had taken the 30-year-old woman for almost 24 hours.

      In that time, a judge ordered Ice to keep Ozturk, who is on an F-1 academic visa, in Massachusetts. But eventually, her lawyers learned that their client had been moved, as many Ice hostages are, to a detention camp in southern Louisiana, more than 1,000 miles (1,600km) from where she was abducted.

      In the video, before she is forced into the van, Ozturk looks terrified, confused. She may well have thought she was being robbed by street thugs; she did not seem to understand, at first, that she was being kidnapped by the state. She tries to plead with her attackers. “Can I just call the cops?” she asks. “We are the police,” one of the men responds. Ozturk remains imprisoned; she has been charged with no crime. In the video of her arrest, a neighbor can be heard nearby, asking: “Is this a kidnapping?”

      The answer is yes. Ozturk is one of a growing number university students who have been targeted, issued arrest warrants, or summarily kidnapped off the streets by Ice agents. She joins the ranks of include Mahmoud Khalil, the Syrian-born Palestinian former graduate student and green card holder from Columbia University; Alireza Doroudi, an Iranian-born mechanical engineering doctoral student at the University of Alabama; Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia undergraduate who was born in South Korea but has long been a green card holder after immigrating to the United States with her parents at the age of seven; and Momodou Taal, a dual British and Gambian citizen who is studying for a graduate degree at Cornell University and has gone into hiding after receiving a summons from Ice to turn himself in for deportation proceedings.

      Many of these students had some connection – however tenuous – to anti-genocide protests on campuses over the past year and a half. Taal and Khalil, in different capacities, were leaders of protests for Palestinian rights at their respective universities. Chung attended one or two demonstrations at Columbia. Ozturk co-authored an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper that cited credible allegations that Israel was violating international human rights law in Gaza and called on the university president to take a stronger stance against the genocide. In a statement regarding her arrest, a DHS spokesperson said: “Investigations found Ozturk engaged in activities in support of Hamas.” They meant the op-ed.

      The state department claims that some of these students have had their visas or permanent resident status rescinded – in a video of the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, taken by his pregnant wife, agents proclaim that his student visa has been revoked, but when they are informed that he has a green card, they say: “We’re revoking that too.” This unilateral revocation of green card protections, without notice or due process, is illegal. But that is not the point – the Trump administration clearly thinks of immigrants as a population with no rights that they need respect.

      Rather, the point is that Trump administration’s promise to crack down on student protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza has the effect of articulating a new speech code for immigrants: no one who is not a United States citizen is entitled to the first amendment right to say that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza, or that the lives of Palestinians are not disposable by virtue of their race.

      It is up to those us who do have citizenship to speak the truth that the Trump administration is willing to kidnap people for saying: genocide is wrong, Israel is committing it against Palestinians in Gaza, and Palestinians, like all people, deserve not only the food and medicine that Israel is withholding from them, and not only an end to Israel’s relentless and largely indiscriminate bombing, but they deserve freedom, dignity and self-determination. This has become an unspeakable truth in Trump’s America. Soon, there will be other things we are not allowed to say, either. We owe it to one another to speak these urgent truths plainly, loudly and often – while we still can.

      Here is another truth: that the US’s treatment of these immigrants should shame us. It was once a cliche to say that the US was a nation of immigrants, that they represented the best of our country. It is not a cliche anymore. For most of my life as an American, it has been a singular source of pride and gratitude that mine was a country that so many people wanted to come to – that people traveled from all over the world to pursue their talent, their ambition and their hopefulness here, and that this was the place that nurtured and rewarded them.

      It may sound vulgar to speak of this lost pride after Ozturk’s kidnapping – all that sentimentality did nothing, after all, to protect her, and may in the end have always been self-serving and false. But as we grapple with what America is becoming – or revealing itself to be – under Donald Trump, I think we can mourn not only the lost delusions of the past but the lost potential of the future.

      Ozturk – a student of early childhood education, and someone brave enough to take a great personal risk in standing up for what she thought was right – seems like a person the US would be lucky to have. Instead we are punishing her, terrorizing her, kidnapping her and throwing her away. She deserves better, and so do all of our immigrants – hopeful, struggling people who mistook this for a place where they could thrive. Who, in the future, will continue to think of the US as a place where immigrants can make a difference, can prosper? Who will share their gifts with us now?

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/28/rumeysa-ozturk-tufts-trump-immigration-gaza

    • Rumeysa Öztürk, PhD student from Turkey, among scores of people detained in the US

      The student was snatched by ICE officers while on her way to break her Ramadan fast.

      On March 25, Rümeysa Öztürk, a 30-year-old Turkish national and Ph.D. student at Tufts University in Massachusetts, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents near her residence in Somerville. The arrest occurred as Öztürk was en route to meet friends and break her Ramadan fast.

      Öztürk was detained without prior notice to Tufts University officials. Despite a federal judge’s order requiring 48 hours’ notice before moving Öztürk out of Massachusetts, the student was nevertheless transferred to the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center. According to CNN, “On Friday, [March 28] a judge in Boston ordered Öztürk not to be deported until she can determine whether the Boston court has jurisdiction to decide if Öztürk was lawfully detained — a decision that drew praise from Öztürk’s lawyers.”

      Öncü Keçeli, a spokesperson for Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, confirmed efforts by the Turkish government to secure the student’s release, including consular and legal support. According to reporting by CNN International, “Öztürk is one of several international university students facing deportation following a Trump administration order to crack down on pro-Palestinian demonstrations on college campuses.”

      Öztürk’s arrest was reportedly linked to an op-ed she co-wrote last year in Tufts’ student newspaper. The authors called on the “university to acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, apologize for University President Sunil Kumar’s statements, disclose [the university’s] investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.”

      Responding to Öztürk’s arrest, Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested she was engaged in disruptive behavior. “If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason why you’re coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we’re not going to give you a visa,” Rubio reportedly said. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin accused Öztürk of “glorifying and supporting terrorists.” Friends have said that, other than co-writing the op-ed, Öztürk was not involved in pro-Palestinian protests.

      On March 31, the Student Press Law Center and 13 other free speech and journalism organizations released a statement condemning what happened to Öztürk, writing that the basis on which she was detained was “a blatant disregard for the principles of free speech and free press within the First Amendment.”

      Meanwhile, in Turkey, the leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), Özgür Özel, condemned the detention of Öztürk in the strongest possible terms. Other politicians also condemned the detention, including the leader of the DEVA party, Ali Babacan, who stated that “supporting Palestine was not a crime but a conscientious responsibility.” Turkey’s Minister of Justice Yılmaz Tunç also condemned the detention of Öztürk during a meeting, saying the action is proof that “there is no freedom of thought and human rights are not respected in so-called democratic countries.”

      On April 3, university President Sunil Kumar defended Öztürk in a court document filed on the student’s behalf. “The University has no information to support the allegations that she was engaged in activities at Tufts that warrant her arrest and detention,” wrote Kumar, according to news reports.

      https://globalvoices.org/2025/04/04/rumeysa-ozturk-phd-student-from-turkey-among-scores-of-people-detained

  • Meta wins bid to prevent Pan Macmillan author and former employee from promoting memoir
    https://www.thebookseller.com/news/meta-wins-bid-to-prevent-pan-macmillan-author-and-former-employee-fro

    An emergency arbitrator in the US has temporarily prohibited Meta’s former director of global public policy and author of the memoir Careless People, Sarah Wynn-Williams, from promoting or further distributing copies of her book.

    The memoir, published in the UK on 13th March by Pan Macmillan and in the US by Flatiron Books (an imprint of Macmillan Books) on 11th March, “details the lengths to which Meta’s leaders were willing to go to achieve growth at any cost” and is full of “never-before-told bombshell revelations”, Pan Macmillan said.

    The book includes allegations of sexual harassment and other inappropriate behaviour during her time at the company. A Meta spokesperson called the claims “out-of-date and false”.

    An emergency arbitration ruling on Wednesday (12th March) found Meta had “provided sufficient grounds that Wynn-Williams had potentially violated her nondisparagement contract with the company” and that Meta would face “immediate and irreparable loss [...] in the absence of immediate relief”.

    Amazing: of all the books in all the world Mr Free Speech Zuckerberg wants to ban, it’s the one about him
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/14/mark-zuckerberg-free-speech-meta-sheryl-sandberg

    Whether the Meta boss and his ex-lieutenant Sheryl Sandberg are truly beyond awful is neither here nor there. I thought he was done with factchecking

  • If Trump Can Deport Mahmoud Khalil, Freedom of Speech Is Dead

    https://theintercept.com/2025/03/10/mahmoud-khalil-palestine-columbia-immigration-deport

    It’s illegal to deport people for political speech, but that’s exactly what ICE is trying to do to this Palestinian Columbia student.

    Ci-dessous, lettre de prison de Mahmoud Khalil : https://seenthis.net/messages/1103179#message1105484

    • Sur Columbia ciblé par Trump voir aussi : https://seenthis.net/messages/1105353

      Donald Trump décrète la guerre à l’université Columbia, bastion du progressisme aux Etats-Unis

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/03/15/donald-trump-decrete-la-guerre-a-l-universite-columbia_6581148_3210.html

      Suppression de 400 millions de dollars de subventions, remise en cause de la liberté académique, arrestation d’étudiants impliqués dans la contestation propalestinienne : le président américain est déterminé à mettre au pas l’établissement new-yorkais.

      [...]

      L’administration Trump a exigé, dans une lettre du jeudi 13 mars, « la mise sous tutelle académique » du département d’études proche-orientales et africaines de l’université Columbia « pour au moins cinq ans ». Une mise en cause sans précédent de la liberté académique qui étend la guerre menée par le président américain contre l’institution de Manhattan. L’université Columbia est devenue l’épicentre de la mobilisation estudiantine contre les bombardements menés sur Gaza par Israël, en réaction à l’attaque terroriste du 7-Octobre.

      L’équipe présidentielle avait commencé ses attaques sur le front financier, annonçant, vendredi 7 mars, la suppression d’une subvention fédérale de 400 millions de dollars (366 millions d’euros). Le lendemain, elle avait fait arrêter le Syrien Mahmoud Khalil, l’un des leaders de la contestation propalestinienne sur le campus. Sa carte verte avait été révoquée par le secrétaire d’Etat en personne, Marco Rubio. L’homme, âgé de 30 ans, marié à une Américaine, a été placé dans un centre de rétention en Louisiane. Vendredi, les autorités fédérales ont annoncé avoir arrêté un deuxième étudiant palestinien impliqué dans les manifestations pro-Gaza de Columbia. Déstabilisation académique, financière et humaine, l’offensive est totale.

      Le rouleau compresseur avance

      Le choix de Columbia n’est pas innocent. L’université a une tradition de progressisme, lancée notamment par Edward Saïd (1935-2003). Ce Palestinien né à Jérusalem sous le mandat britannique, spécialiste de littérature anglaise et de littérature comparée, fut l’un des fondateurs des études postcoloniales, un courant dont s’inspire le mouvement actuel de critique d’Israël. Ses successeurs sont encore actifs sur le campus.

      Ensuite, le conflit à Gaza a profondément déchiré le corps professoral, notamment les enseignants juifs, divisés entre pro-Nétanyahou et défenseurs des Palestiniens. Les républicains se sont engouffrés dans cette faille, accusant l’université de ne pas avoir lutté contre l’antisémitisme et d’avoir mal protégé les étudiants juifs. C’est ce qu’a déclaré, le 7 mars, la ministre de l’éducation, Linda McMahon, pour justifier la coupe des aides fédérales. « Aujourd’hui, nous démontrons à Columbia et aux autres universités que nous ne tolérerons plus leur inaction déplorable », a-t-elle dit.

    • I am a Palestinian political prisoner in the US. I am being targeted for my activism - a letter from Mahmoud Khalil
      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/19/mahmoud-khalil-statement

      The Columbia graduate and green-card holder, held in Louisiana by immigration agents, dictated this letter to family and friends

      L’intégralité de la lettre :

      My name is Mahmoud Khalil and I am a political prisoner. I am writing to you from a detention facility in Louisiana where I wake to cold mornings and spend long days bearing witness to the quiet injustices under way against a great many people precluded from the protections of the law.

      Who has the right to have rights? It is certainly not the humans crowded into the cells here. It isn’t the Senegalese man I met who has been deprived of his liberty for a year, his legal situation in limbo and his family an ocean away. It isn’t the 21-year-old detainee I met who stepped foot in this country at age nine, only to be deported without so much as a hearing.

      Justice escapes the contours of this nation’s immigration facilities.

      On March 8, I was taken by DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] agents who refused to provide a warrant, and accosted my wife and me as we returned from dinner. By now, the footage of that night has been made public. Before I knew what was happening, agents handcuffed and forced me into an unmarked car. At that moment, my only concern was for Noor’s safety. I had no idea if she would be taken too, since the agents had threatened to arrest her for not leaving my side. DHS would not tell me anything for hours – I did not know the cause of my arrest or if I was facing immediate deportation. At 26 Federal Plaza, I slept on the cold floor. In the early morning hours, agents transported me to another facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. There, I slept on the ground and was refused a blanket despite my request.

      My arrest was a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza, which resumed in full force Monday night. With January’s ceasefire now broken, parents in Gaza are once again cradling too-small shrouds, and families are forced to weigh starvation and displacement against bombs. It is our moral imperative to persist in the struggle for their complete freedom.

      I was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria to a family which has been displaced from their land since the 1948 Nakba. I spent my youth in proximity to yet distant from my homeland. But being Palestinian is an experience that transcends borders. I see in my circumstances similarities to Israel’s use of administrative detention – imprisonment without trial or charge – to strip Palestinians of their rights. I think of our friend Omar Khatib, who was incarcerated without charge or trial by Israel as he returned home from travel. I think of Gaza hospital director and pediatrician Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, who was taken captive by the Israeli military on December 27 and remains in an Israeli torture camp today. For Palestinians, imprisonment without due process is commonplace.

      I have always believed that my duty is not only to liberate myself from the oppressor, but also to liberate my oppressors from their hatred and fear. My unjust detention is indicative of the anti-Palestinian racism that both the Biden and Trump administrations have demonstrated over the past 16 months as the US has continued to supply Israel with weapons to kill Palestinians and prevented international intervention. For decades, anti-Palestinian racism has driven efforts to expand US laws and practices that are used to violently repress Palestinians, Arab Americans, and other communities. That is precisely why I am being targeted.

      While I await legal decisions that hold the futures of my wife and child in the balance, those who enabled my targeting remain comfortably at Columbia University. Presidents [Minouche] Shafik, [Katrina] Armstrong, and Dean [Keren] Yarhi-Milo laid the groundwork for the US government to target me by arbitrarily disciplining pro-Palestinian students and allowing viral doxing campaigns – based on racism and disinformation – to go unchecked.

      Columbia targeted me for my activism, creating a new authoritarian disciplinary office to bypass due process and silence students criticizing Israel. Columbia surrendered to federal pressure by disclosing student records to Congress and yielding to the Trump administration’s latest threats. My arrest, the expulsion or suspension of at least 22 Columbia students – some stripped of their BA degrees just weeks before graduation – and the expulsion of SWC [Student Workers of Columbia] President Grant Miner on the eve of contract negotiations, are clear examples.

      If anything, my detention is a testament to the strength of the student movement in shifting public opinion toward Palestinian liberation. Students have long been at the forefront of change – leading the charge against the Vietnam war, standing on the frontlines of the civil rights movement, and driving the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Today, too, even if the public has yet to fully grasp it, it is students who steer us toward truth and justice.

      The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Visa holders, green-card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs. In the weeks ahead, students, advocates, and elected officials must unite to defend the right to protest for Palestine. At stake are not just our voices, but the fundamental civil liberties of all.

      Knowing fully that this moment transcends my individual circumstances, I hope nonetheless to be free to witness the birth of my first-born child.

    • États-Unis. Mahmoud Khalil, étudiant palestinien et prisonnier d’opinion

      https://orientxxi.info/magazine/etats-unis-mahmoud-khalil-etudiant-palestinien-et-prisonnier-d-opinion,8

      En arrêtant Mahmoud Khalil, étudiant palestinien et résident permanent aux États-Unis, sans mandat ni condamnation, l’administration Trump intensifie la répression des mobilisations pro-palestiniennes sur les campus, suscitant une indignation nationale face à une mesure jugée inconstitutionnelle.

    • Palestinian Student Leader [Mohsen K. Mahdawi] Was Called In for Citizenship Interview — Then Arrested by ICE

      https://theintercept.com/2025/04/14/ice-columbia-student-mohsen-mahdawi-citizenship-interview

      A green card holder, Columbia University protest leader Mohsen Mahdawi faced attacks from pro-Israel activists.

      Mohsen K. Mahdawi arrived at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office in Colchester, Vermont, on Monday. A Palestinian student at Columbia University, he hoped that, after 10 years in the U.S., he would pass the test to become a naturalized citizen.

      Instead, agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him and began the process to deport him to the occupied West Bank. Mahdawi, a leader of the campus protest movement against Israel’s war on Gaza, became yet another green card holder arrested and facing removal.

      “Mohsen Mahdawi was unlawfully detained today for no reason other than his Palestinian identity,” Mahdawi’s attorney Luna Droubi said in a statement to The Intercept. “He came to this country hoping to be free to speak out about the atrocities he has witnessed, only to be punished for such speech.”

  • Federal health workers terrified after ’DEI’ website publishes list of ’targets’

    The site calls out workers who have been involved with DEI initiatives. A majority are Black.

    Federal health workers are expressing fear and alarm after a website called “#DEI_Watch_List” published the photos, names and public information of a number of workers across health agencies, describing them at one point as “targets.”

    It’s unclear when the website, which lists mostly Black employees who work in agencies primarily within the Department of Health and Human Services, first appeared.

    “Offenses” for the workers listed on the website include working on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, donating to Democrats and using pronouns in their bios.

    The website, a government worker said, is being circulated among multiple private group chats of federal health workers across agencies, as well as through social media links.

    The site also reached Dr. Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association, who learned about it Tuesday evening when a federal health worker sent it to him.

    “This is a scare tactic to try to intimidate people who are trying to do their work and do it admirably,” Benjamin said. “It’s clear racism.”

    A government worker said they found out theirs was among the names on the website Tuesday afternoon after a former co-worker sent them the link on social media.

    “It’s unnerving,” said the person, who requested anonymity because of safety concerns. “My name and my picture is there, and in 2025, it’s very simple to Google and look up someone’s home address and all kinds of things that potentially put me at risk.”

    “I don’t know what the intention of the list is for,” the person said. “It’s just kind of a scary place to be.”

    On Tuesday evening, the site listed photos of employees and linked to further information about them under the headline “Targets.” Later Tuesday night, the headline on each page had been changed to “Dossiers.”

    The site lists workers’ salaries along with what it describes as “DEI offenses,” including political donations, screenshots of social media posts, snippets from websites describing their work, or being a part of a DEI initiative that has been scrubbed from a federal website.

    Benjamin suggested the acts of online harassment are criminal. “Law enforcement should look into them.”

    A person who isn’t on the list but works at a federal health agency called the website “psychological warfare.” The link, this person said, is being circulated in their private group chat of federal health workers, causing some to “freak out.”

    It’s hard to gauge, the worker said, whether it’s a legitimate threat. “I don’t know anything about the organization doing this or their parent association. People are just paranoid right now.”

    A note at the bottom of the website says, “A project of the American Accountability Foundation.” That group is a conservative watchdog group.

    It’s not the first time the group has created such a list. In December, it sent Pete Hegseth, then the nominee for defense secretary, a list of names of people in the military whom it deemed too focused on diversity, equity and inclusion, the New York Post reported at the time.

    Neither the American Accountability Foundation nor HHS immediately responded to requests for comment.

    The website comes after a bruising two weeks for public health workers. Employees at the #Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention say they have received “threatening” memos from the #Department_of_Health_and_Human Services directing them to terminate any activities, jobs and research with any connection to diversity, equity and inclusion — and turn in co-workers who don’t adhere to the orders. HHS oversees federal health agencies, including the CDC and the #National_Institutes_of_Health.

    “The tone is aggressive. It’s threatening consequences if we are not obedient. It’s asking us to report co-workers who aren’t complying,” said a CDC physician who wasn’t authorized to speak to reporters. “There’s a lot of fear and panic.”

    NBC News reviewed one of the memos, which directed employees to “review all agency position descriptions and send a notification to all employees whose position description involves inculcating or promoting gender ideology that they are being placed on paid administrative leave effective immediately.”

    The result, staffers said, is paranoia.

    “I know of people who have been put on administrative leave for perceived infractions related to these ambiguous memos. People are thinking if I put one foot wrong, I’m just going to be fired,” another CDC physician said.

    In one case, a potluck luncheon among co-workers was hastily canceled for fear it would be seen as a way to promote cultural diversity.

    Despite the harassment, public health employees said they remain committed to their work.

    “If I leave, who’s going to replace me?” a CDC physician said. “If nobody replaces me and enough of us leave, then who’s going to be doing the public health work?”

    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/federal-health-workers-terrified-dei-website-publishes-list-targets-rcna190
    #liste #cibles #USA #Etats-Unis #it_has_begun #fonctionnaires #intimidation #inclusion #diversité #équité #santé #menaces #santé_publique #délation #DEI

    • Higher Ed Fights Back Against Trump’s #DEI_Order

      The American Association of University Professors and others argue in a new lawsuit that the executive orders violate the Constitution.

      College professors and university diversity officers are teaming up with nonprofits and local governments to challenge President Trump’s executive orders that target diversity, equity and inclusion programs in the federal government, higher education and the private sector. Those orders, they argue, violate the U.S. Constitution and have already caused much uncertainty on college campuses.

      The American Association of University Professors, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and other groups argue in a lawsuit filed Monday that the orders exceed executive legal authority, violate both the First and Fifth Amendments, and threaten academic freedom and access to higher education for all. They want a judge to declare that the executive orders are unconstitutional and to block the government from further enforcement.

      “In the United States, there is no king,” the plaintiffs say in the 40-page complaint. “In his crusade to erase diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility from our country, President Trump cannot usurp Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, nor can he silence those who disagree with him by threatening them with the loss of federal funds and other enforcement actions.”

      Filed in the U.S. District Court in Maryland, the lawsuit is the first to target the DEI-related orders. Numerous states and nonprofits, however, have sued the Trump administration to challenge other executive actions taken during the president’s first two weeks in office, including his attempt to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans.

      The academic organizations involved in this DEI case are represented by Democracy Forward, the same pro bono legal group that was first to successfully challenge the federal funding freeze. Asian Americans Advancing Justice, another nonprofit civil rights group, also is representing the plaintiffs.

      The executive orders at issue in this lawsuit aim to end what Trump sees as “illegal discrimination” and “wasteful” programs. Institutions that don’t comply could face financial penalties or federal investigations.

      Although AAUP has openly discouraged universities from engaging in “anticipatory obedience,” which it defined as “acting to comply in advance of any pressure to do so,” several colleges and universities have already taken action in an attempt to avoid rebuke from the Trump administration. That includes canceling a Lunar New Year event and removing references to DEI from college websites.

      Trump’s orders are not the first of their kind. They build on a number of laws recently passed in Republican-led states that ban DEI offices and programs in colleges and universities and aim to take those efforts nationwide. Colleges in states like Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Texas and Utah have taken action to comply with those laws, laying off staff and shutting down cultural centers. In some states, such as Kentucky and Michigan, public colleges dissolved certain DEI standards or full offices before legislation passed.

      Regardless of the state-by-state scenarios, groups like NADOHE say they will continue to fight for DEI protection, as such programs are crucial to fulfilling the mission of higher education. Getting rid of DEI, NADOHE says, would send a chilling shock wave throughout academia and lead to increased harassment, discrimination and violence across campuses.

      “By attacking the important work of diversity, equity and inclusion offices at educational institutions, the order seeks to dismantle critical support systems for historically underrepresented students,” NADOHE president Paulette Granberry Russell told Inside Higher Ed after Trump signed the second DEI order. “This would limit workforce preparation and stifle efforts to address systemic inequities. This order depicts diversity, equity and inclusion as divisive when, in reality, these initiatives aim to ensure opportunity for all.”
      What Does the Lawsuit Say?

      The lawsuit is focused on two executive orders that Trump issued during his first 48 hours in office.

      The first order directed federal agencies to get rid of all federal diversity offices and positions and end any “equity-related” grants and contracts. Numerous DEI staffers have since lost their jobs, and dozens of general staff members from the Education Department who attended any DEI training in the past have been put on administrative leave.

      The lawsuit alleges that Trump exceeded his legal authority in issuing that order, as Congress—not the president—has authority over the federal government’s purse strings. Therefore, the plaintiffs argue, Trump does not have the power to unilaterally terminate equity-related grants and contracts “without express statutory authority.”

      The second order, signed Jan. 21, more directly impacts higher education. It calls on all agencies—including the Department of Education—to “enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” It also orders the attorney general and the education secretary to create guidance for colleges and universities on how to comply with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action, and for the secretary to investigate up to nine colleges that have endowments worth more than $1 billion as part an effort “to deter DEI programs or principles.

      The lawyers argue that both orders are overly vague. Neither defines terms such as “DEI,” “illegal DEIA” or “equity.” As a result, they argue, colleges, universities and other institutions have not been given fair guidance as to what is prohibited and what they could be indicted and face penalties for, violating the plaintiffs’ right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. “The lack of definitions necessarily requires people of common intelligence to guess as to what is prohibited,” the lawsuit states. It goes on to suggest that by ordering the investigation of “illegal DEIA” practices at up to nine colleges without first defining the term, the president has granted agencies “carte blanche authority to implement the order discriminatorily.”

      The plaintiffs also argue that the second order violates the First Amendment, discouraging free speech and academic freedom around DEI-related topics on campus—dampening the public service role of academia as a marketplace of ideas. “The Constitution protects the right of scholars, teachers, and researchers to think, speak, and teach without governmental interference,” the plaintiffs write. “The ‘essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident’ and educators play a ‘vital role in a democracy’.”
      Can Trump ‘Avoid Running Afoul’?

      AAUP president Todd Wolfson said the association is committed to fighting for a higher education system that’s accessible to all, regardless of background. He went on to describe Trump’s orders as “destructive” and said that eliminating DEI at public institutions would threaten the democratic purpose of higher ed.

      “Trump’s orders are about controlling the range of ideas that can be discussed in the classroom, limiting and censoring faculty and students, and codifying into law the prejudices of the past,” he said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “These are attempts at authoritarianism that this nation has overcome before. We will do so again.”

      But Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a First Amendment advocacy group, isn’t so sure. He said in an email statement that Trump’s executive orders on DEI “appear to avoid running afoul of the First Amendment,” but in a more detailed analysis memo, FIRE warns that “implementation should proceed carefully.”

      “Overzealous enforcement could threaten free speech by, for example, indirectly chilling a professor from sharing their positive views of affirmative action policies or leading to investigation of a government grantee for a social media post expressing personal support for DEI initiatives,” the foundation wrote.

      Neither Coward nor the foundation at large, however, commented on the lawsuit’s standing as far as violations of the Fifth Amendment or the separation of powers.

      “We are concerned that the executive order about gender ideology could be used to censor speech on sex and gender,” Coward said. “FIRE is closely watching how federal agencies interpret and enforce the executive orders to ensure the government doesn’t infringe on constitutionally protected speech.”

      https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/2025/02/05/higher-ed-organizations-sue-against-trumps-dei-orders

      #mots #vocabulaire
      #diversité #équité #inclusion #accessibilité

    • Trump Takes Aim at DEI in Higher Ed

      The executive order doesn’t have an immediate impact on DEI programs at colleges and universities, but experts worry about a chilling effect.

      One of President Donald Trump’s latest executive orders aims to end “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion policies and could upend programs that support underrepresented groups on college campuses.

      Whether the order, signed late Tuesday night, will be effective is not clear, some experts cautioned Wednesday. Others celebrated it as the end of DEI in America.

      The order calls on all agencies to “enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities,” though it doesn’t define DEI. Additionally, the order directs the attorney general and education secretary—neither of whom have been confirmed—to create guidance for colleges and universities on how to comply with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, which banned the use of race-conscious admissions policies.

      The order should not, however, have any immediate impact on higher ed, as most provisions require agency action.

      Higher education experts and diversity, equity and inclusion advocates say it’s difficult to know how far Trump’s latest order against DEI will actually go, but they are certain it represents an attempt to reverse more than 50 years of civil rights work to promote equal access to the American education system.

      University stakeholders add that Trump’s ultimate goal is to amplify culture war issues and create a dichotomy between merit and hard work and programs that celebrate diversity and promote equitable access.

      “What I see is a broad attempt to remove everything that is associated with long-standing institutional efforts to desegregate the U.S. government and institutions like colleges and universities that are entangled with the government through federal financial aid,” said Brendan Cantwell, a professor of education at Michigan State University.

      But anti–diversity, equity and inclusion activists and conservative politicians, on the other hand, see Tuesday’s order as a positive change that reminds colleges to teach students how to think rather than what to think.

      “For too long, social justice warriors crusaded to mandate DEI in every corner of America. Instead of merit, skills, and ability, DEI devotees pushed policies that are antithetical to American exceptionalism,” Republican representative and House education committee chair Tim Walberg said in a statement. “From the classroom to the board room, Americans have felt the negative effects.”

      Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, said deconstruction of DEI is impending.

      “Tomorrow morning, the general counsels for every major corporation and university are going to be reading President Trump’s executive orders on DEI and figuring out how they can avoid getting ruined by federal civil rights lawyers,” he wrote on X. “Huge changes imminent.”

      Trump’s latest DEI action builds upon other related orders regarding sex, race and equity that he signed in the first two days of his second term, but this one has the highest likelihood of directly impacting higher education.

      That’s in part because the order designates any institution that receives federal financial aid as a subcontractor. As subcontractors, colleges’ employment, procurement and contracting practices “shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the nation’s civil rights laws,” according to the order.

      Additionally, the Education Department must pick up to nine colleges that have endowments worth more than $1 billion to investigate as part an effort “to deter DEI programs or principles.” Harvard University, other Ivy League institutions and more than two dozen other colleges would be on the list for a potential inquiry.

      ‘The DEI Party Is Over’

      Across the board, policy experts that Inside Higher Ed spoke with say that while it is clear what Trump seeks to do, it is uncertain exactly what will actually come to pass. They called the order’s language broad and said much of its consequences will depend on what levers the department pulls for compliance, among other factors.

      Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations and national engagement for the American Council on Education, said in a webinar Wednesday that though the executive orders have created uncertainty, the directives don’t change federal law and are subject to lawsuits.

      “The things we are talking about aren’t absolutes,” he said. “There’s a lot of understandable concern, but some things haven’t changed.”

      On the other hand, Adam Kissel, a visiting fellow of higher education reform at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the order’s implications are very clear.

      “Colleges and universities, as well as other institutions, are on notice that the DEI party is over,” he said.

      One way that the Trump administration can try to ensure the “DEI party” is fully brought to a halt is by telling colleges that the Supreme Court’s ruling on race-conscious admissions policies extends to any scholarship program or student support services that are geared toward a specific race or ethnic group. Colleges that don’t comply could risk their access to federal financial aid.

      Some legal analysts and Republican officials have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling also bars scholarships, internships and other educational programs that take race into account. The Biden administration disagreed and said the ruling only affected admissions.

      Kissel said he is “200 percent sure” the Trump administration has the ability to extend the ruling to more than just admissions.

      “The Supreme Court said discrimination is wrong and illegal under the equal protection clause as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” he said. And “when we’re talking about nondiscrimination, I think SCOTUS was very clear that the broad interpretation is correct.”

      Kissel expects that the Trump administration will tie DEI compliance to both research grants and Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which authorizes federal financial aid programs. He believes they have clearance to do so as DEI is, in his view, discriminatory and colleges accessing federal funds cannot discriminate.
      ‘Pre-Emptive Compliance’

      Regardless of the clarity level, a key factor that could determine the impact of the DEI order is how university leaders respond.

      Cantwell said the response from leaders will depend on whether the university is private and what state it’s located in. He expects the order to carry more force at public colleges in Republican-led states. The government has the least control over private universities, he said, and though some dollars come from the federal government, much of higher ed funding is allocated at the state level, giving local lawmakers the most leverage on whether to enforce Trump’s rules.

      Although blue states that disagree with the president’s order may be less likely than red states to pass legislation reinforcing the guidelines, some universities could act on their own. Some institutions, such as the University of Michigan, have already started to rethink their DEI programs in an effort to pre-emptively comply with federal directives.

      “[The case of Michigan] does hint at some wariness,” Cantwell said. “And that wariness and sort of pre-emptive compliance, even absent direct threats from the federal or state government, might be somewhat universal. But I also think we will definitely see lots of variation by state.”

      Sarah Hubbard, a Republican elected regent at the University of Michigan, said the latest executive order shows that Trump is “doing exactly what he said he’d do” and should be a sign that more steps need to be taken in order for Michigan and other public institutions to avoid losing billions in federal funds.

      Michigan has already repealed the use of diversity statements in the hiring process and adopted a policy of institutional neutrality but has not directly cut staff or funding for any of its highly criticized DEI programs. Those decisions would be made in the upcoming budget cycle.

      “Not speaking on behalf of the board … I hope that we will be doing more to realign our campus toward need-based scholarships and removing overbearing DEI bureaucracy,” Hubbard said.
      A Chilling Shock Wave

      Some higher education experts—particularly those working in and around DEI departments—are bracing for it to have a “gigantic” impact on students and faculty.

      Kaleb Briscoe is an assistant professor of adult and higher education at the University of Oklahoma whose recent research has focused on the repercussions of DEI bans. She said that the order has already “sent shock waves,” adding that her phone is “blowing up about it.”

      Although the action does not explicitly say it will ban or restrict DEI programs like some state-level laws, Briscoe believes that Trump’s campaign messages and record from his first term speak loudly. Among other actions, Trump issued an executive order defunding any federally funded trainings or programs that promote race or sex “stereotyping” or “scapegoating.” (Former President Biden rescinded that order.)

      “The language within the executive order does not directly call for [banning DEI], but it doesn’t mean that it cannot be misinterpreted or used by policymakers to come up with additional bans,” she said.

      Shaun Harper, a professor of education, business and public policy and the founder of the University of Southern California’s Race and Equity Center, and an opinion contributor to Inside Higher Ed, said the order “will surely frighten” university administrators. It will likely lead to the pre-emptive hiding, renaming or discontinuation of their DEI initiatives, he added.

      “These leaders will be worried about losing their federal funding, which is exactly what DEI opponents want,” Harper said in an email to Inside Higher Ed. Heterosexual, Christian white men will likely feel supported and affirmed by Trump’s anti-DEI orders, as “too many of them have been tricked into misunderstanding DEI initiatives to be unfair, universal attacks,” he added.

      But in the meantime, Harper said that minority students will face increased harassment, discrimination and violence and will “be left stranded without justice.”

      Briscoe echoed Harper, adding that as the number of DEI-focused staff members dwindles, faculty members will be left to pick up the pieces.

      “We’re looking at a very uphill climb of faculty having to take on more student affairs, diversity professional roles,” she said. “Staff may not exist, but these student needs will have not changed.”

      Paulette Granberry Russell, president and CEO of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, said the order is “deeply concerning,” mischaracterizes DEI and takes aim at the core mission of higher education.

      “By attacking the important work of diversity, equity and inclusion offices at educational institutions, the order seeks to dismantle critical support systems for historically underrepresented students,” she said. “This would limit workforce preparation and stifle efforts to address systemic inequities. This order depicts diversity, equity and inclusion as divisive when, in reality, these initiatives aim to ensure opportunity for all.”

      Granberry Russell added that while the order’s immediate impact will depend on how agencies enforce it, “it is already causing uncertainty and fear.”

      “I hope that university leaders will recognize that executive orders should not dictate the values and priorities of higher education institutions,” she said. “Many colleges and universities have long-standing commitments to fostering inclusive environments, and I hope they will continue to uphold these principles despite political headwinds.”

      https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/01/23/how-trumps-order-targeting-dei-could-affect-higher-ed
      #ESR #recherche #université #enseignement_supérieur

    • ’Unprecedented’: White House moves to control science funding worry researchers

      Darby Saxbe is worried her research funding might get canceled.

      People’s brains change when they become parents. She studies fathers’ brains, in particular, to understand which changes might underlie better parenting. And she wants to study a variety of brains.

      “If you want to understand the brain and biology changes of fathers, you don’t necessarily want to only look at white affluent fathers who are hanging out around a university, which is what a convenient sample might be composed of,” says the University of Southern California neuroendocrinologist. “That just makes for a better, more impactful research project.”

      So with a grant from the #National_Science_Foundation — a federal agency with a $9 billion annual #budget to fund research — she’s working to include more people from minority groups in her study.

      But her research proposal contained the words “diverse” and “underrepresented,” words that now appear on a list of hundreds of DEI-related terms that NSF is currently using to comb through tens of thousands of research grants. The process, described to NPR by two NSF officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from the administration, aims to flag research that may not comply with President Trump’s executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

      This kind of scrutiny, along with other actions of the administration so far — freezing grants, clamping down on communications from federal agencies, taking down databases on women’s health, HIV and youth behaviors and purging some of DEI-related terms — represent to many scientists an extreme move to exert more presidential control over the kinds of science that get funded, and potentially who does it. If continued, it could represent a major departure from how science has been funded for decades.

      “This is totally unprecedented, nothing like this has ever happened,” says Neal Lane, who served as director of the NSF from 1993 to 1998. “NSF has a mandate to care about the workforce and ensure that all Americans have opportunities to participate in science,” he says. By targeting DEI, “they’re killing American science.”

      Since the 1990s, Congress has mandated that NSF weigh how its grants will boost the participation of women and minorities in science, in addition to the intellectual merits of the proposal. Now, the Trump administration is essentially saying they can’t follow that law.

      “President Trump was elected president, but in being elected president, the laws of the United States were not repealed and replaced with whatever he wants to do,” says Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology. “These are bipartisan efforts to make sure that we don’t miss smart people in the science enterprise across the United States.”

      But some say that considering diversity in grantmaking leads to worse science. Last October, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a report that “NSF allocated over $2.05 billion to thousands of research projects that promoted neo-Marxist perspectives or DEI tenets” and suggested that it undermines “objective hard science.”

      “Intellectual diversity is welcome,” says Jonathan Butcher, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “But judging the merits of an idea based on the description of the grant is far more important than figuring out where the people involved are literally coming from, in terms of racial background or country of origin.”
      Changing how science gets funded

      Presidents have the authority to set priorities in research funding, and have used this power. The Biden administration made a push for climate and cancer research, for instance, and George W. Bush’s administration prioritized energy research and the physical sciences. Congress allocates money to these priorities, and then the agencies work out the finer details.

      “Since World War II, science has been organized around this idea of peer review, that scientists understand what good science is and should make decisions about what we should be funding,” says Elizabeth Popp Berman, a sociologist who studies science at the University of Michigan.

      At NSF, that means program officers — often scientists who work at other institutions who come to NSF for temporary stints — manage a review process of proposals, with input from a range of scientists. The law dictates that NSF consider both the intellectual merit of a proposal and the “broader impacts” the research might enable, meaning how the research will benefit society.

      For decades, a key part of those potential benefits is how grants will boost the participation of women and underrepresented groups in science. Since 1997, Congress has required NSF to explicitly weigh such factors in its grantmaking. According to Suzanne Barbour, dean of the Duke University Graduate School and chair of NSF’s Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, that ultimately benefits the taxpayer.

      “There is a large emerging literature that suggests that teams have the largest array of voices, from different different backgrounds, different kinds of lived experiences, voices that perhaps have addressed problems from slightly different angles,” she says. “They’re more creative, they’re more successful and … ultimately are the kinds of teams that make the biggest discoveries.”

      Trump’s executive orders are squarely opposed to that mission. The agency is currently reviewing grants for DEI-related terms using, in part, a list from Sen. Cruz’s October 2024 report titled “How the Biden-Harris NSF Politicized Science,” according to NPR’s NSF sources.

      It’s unclear what will happen to flagged grants. NSF has resumed funding existing awards after freezing them in late January and says they “can not take action to delay or stop payment for active awards based solely on actual or potential non-compliance with the Executive Orders.” The NSF sources tell NPR that approximately 20% of grants were initially flagged, and that number could be further winnowed.

      In reviewing grants for DEI-related content and temporarily pausing payments, the agency seems to be prioritizing the executive order over its congressional mandate, a practice that contradicts internal guidance saying law takes precedence over executive orders when there’s a conflict.

      The Trump administration’s efforts to exert more control over science at NSF go beyond DEI. On Tuesday, staff were informed of plans to cut the agency’s headcount of about 1,700 by 25% to 50% over the next two months, according to NPR’s NSF sources. Staff were also informed that President Trump’s first budget request could slash the agency’s budget from $9 billion to $3 billion, first reported by ArsTechnica and confirmed by NPR, though the actual reduction negotiated by Congress may be different.

      “This administration appears to be not just setting priorities, but enforcing ideological conformity in a way that if your grant is studying something that’s not aligned with a particular view of the world, it’s just not going to be funded,” says Berman. “I think taking that away has the potential to undermine the whole scientific enterprise.”
      Worries about America’s competitive edge

      If the Trump administration continues aggressively targeting diversity initiatives in science and seeking to substantially cut funding, American science will look fundamentally different, says Berman.

      Whole academic fields could wither without federal funds, she says, especially if DEI is broadly defined. “This cuts across economics, psychology, sociology. In all these fields, there are whole chunks of the discipline that may just not be possible to carry on anymore,” says Berman.

      The moves have also sparked a culture of fear among many scientists. “This level of scrutiny is going to make research less collaborative, less competitive and less innovative,” says Diana Macias, an ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is funded by an NSF grant. Bringing more people into science is “not just broadening for the sake of broadening, but it’s broadening for the sake of developing rigorous questions that help us really stay competitive.”

      Only about a quarter of NSF grant proposals win funding, and that’s after a rigorous application process. The idea that an awarded grant could get rescinded, or proposals not get funded for political reasons, makes many scientists uncomfortable and could ultimately lead some to quit or move outside the U.S.

      “I train graduate students and undergrads who want to pursue science careers,” says Saxbe. “It’s hard for me to think about how to encourage them when it seems like the very work that we do is so vulnerable to partisan attack.”

      Federal funding supports these trainees, many of whom ultimately go into the private sector. The NSF funds nearly 80% of fundamental computing research at universities, according to a recent statement from the Computing Research Association.

      Reduced funding could ultimately lead to a smaller skilled workforce to work on important issues in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and more. That’s despite an insistence by close allies of the president, including Elon Musk, that the U.S. lacks enough homegrown talent to fill the tech industry’s demand for computer science professionals like software engineers and programmers.

      “The private sector does a lot of very important, primarily applied research and development. But they really don’t fund the same kind of research where you are really exploring the frontier,” says Lane, the former NSF director.

      “They can’t justify to their stockholders doing most of the things that the National Science Foundation does. If you take away federal support for science, science is dead in the United States. Nothing can replace that.”

      https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/07/nx-s1-5289912/unprecedented-white-house-moves-to-control-science-funding-worry-researchers

      #science #projets_de_recherche

    • Offensive obscurantiste aux USA : Trump crée un « #bureau_de_la_foi » et #censure le monde universitaire

      Ces propos délirants sortent de la bouche de Paula White, la conseillère spirituelle du président américain depuis 2011. Vous ne la connaissez peut-être pas encore, mais son rôle a été prépondérant pendant la campagne de Trump : elle assure notamment la communication avec les courants intégristes religieux, très puissants aux États-Unis. Un habitant des États-Unis sur cinq se définit en effet comme évangéliste : une base électorale obscurantiste et essentielle pour Donald Trump.
      L’intégrisme chrétien au pouvoir

      Paula White est à présent à la tête d’un nouveau “Bureau de la foi” de la Maison blanche, chargé de renforcer la place de la religion dans la politique du pays. Cette dernière est connue pour ses appels à la haine homophobe ou raciste, déclarant que “l’antifascisme et Black Lives Matter sont l’antéchrist” ou encore “ce n’est pas OK de se faire avorter. Ce n’est pas OK de se marier avec quelqu’un du même sexe”. Ses propos fanatisés semblent sortis d’un autre âge.

      Paula White avait, entre autres joyeusetés, organisé une prière publique en janvier 2020 pour que “toutes les grossesses sataniques aboutissent à une fausse couche”. Cette illuminée aurait toute sa place sous l’inquisition du Moyen-Age, quand un tribunal ecclésiastique jugeait les hérétiques.

      Les mouvements chrétiens fondamentalistes américains considèrent Trump comme un “envoyé de Dieu”, dont la mission sacrée est de s’opposer aux satanistes – les “wokes”, les homosexuels… Il affirmait lui-même d’ailleurs avoir été “sauvé par Dieu” lors de la tentative de meurtre à laquelle il a échappé l’été dernier, pour qu’il guide le pays et lui rende sa grandeur. Une mission divine, exaltée par ses déclarations : “ramenons Dieu dans nos vies” a-t-il réclamé.

      Pourtant, le 1er amendement des États-Unis proclame la séparation de l’État et de la religion. Ces personnes qui se présentent comme les seules vraies gardiens de la Constitution des USA violent donc allègrement son premier amendement. Ces mouvements intégristes religieux constituent la base de l’extrême droite américaine : on les retrouve massivement lors de l’attaque du Capitole en 2021, où nombre de manifestants arboraient des t-shirts avec des symboles chrétiens.

      Dans le même registre, le nouveau secrétaire de la Défense des USA Pete Hegseth, qui est désormais l’un des hommes les plus puissants du pays, a fait inscrire « Jésus » en hébreu sur son bras, un tatouage réalisé à Bethléem, et une grande croix de Jérusalem sur sa poitrine, un symbole représentant une grande croix encerclé de croix grecques plus petites. Un symbole utilisé pendant les Croisades et représentant le royaume de Jérusalem établi par les croisés.

      Hegseth ne cache pas sa fascination pour cette période de conflit sanglant opposant les armées chrétiennes aux musulmans. Cet homme est un vétéran de la Garde nationale du Minnesota, un animateur de la chaine d’extrême droite Fox News, et adhère à une mouvance religieuse sectaire nommée Reconstructionnisme réformé, qui prône l’application de la loi chrétienne biblique à la société, un monde exclusivement dirigé par les hommes et une préparation au retour de Jésus.

      Doit-on s’étonner de voir l’obscurantisme religieux revenir sur le devant de la scène aux États-Unis ? Non. Il avance main dans la main avec le capitalisme sans limite dont rêvent Trump et son inséparable duo Elon Musk. La religion représente d’ailleurs un marché plus que rentable aux États-Unis : 1200 milliards de dollars en 2016.

      L’extrême-droite est étroitement liée aux milieux chrétiens dans de nombreux pays. L’économiste Samir Amin explique que “le capitalisme des monopoles contemporain, en crise, développe une offensive idéologique massive et systématique assise sur le recours au discours de la spiritualité”. Il estime que la faillite de la classe bourgeoise, qui avait massivement adhéré si ce n’est au nazisme ou au fascisme, tout du moins à la collaboration, avait permis aux classes ouvrières au lendemain de la seconde guerre mondiale de construire un rapport de force conséquent.

      Après guerre, le patronat était discrédité, le Parti Communiste était le premier parti dans de nombreux pays, dont la France et l’Italie, et les syndicats étaient de puissants contre-pouvoirs. Pour contrer cela, Washington a poussé à la création de nouveaux partis chrétiens-démocrates afin de résister à la menace communiste.

      Ces partis constituent aujourd’hui la droite traditionnelle dans de nombreux pays européens, remettant le débat autour de l’importance du christianisme comme base de la civilisation occidentale. On en voit la marque de nos jours dans la droite de nombreux pays européens, et la France n’est pas en reste : Macron a largement piétiné la laïcité ces dernières années, comme la cérémonie d’ouverture de Notre-Dame en a été encore l’exemple.

      Aujourd’hui, les partis fascisants qui arrivent au pouvoir dans de nombreux pays se réclament également d’un retour à la foi chrétienne. Mais une foi revisitée, vidée de sa spiritualité, transformée en show, mise en spectacle sur le modèle des évangélistes. Georgia Meloni se revendique “femme, italienne, et chrétienne”, faisant de cette identité un véritable programme politique. Viktor Orban se pose en défenseur des “valeurs chrétiennes”. Marine Le Pen se dit “extrêmement croyante”. Aux États-Unis, l’arrivée au pouvoir de Trump a scellé l’accord parfait entre extrême-droite, intégrisme religieux et capital.
      Guerre contre la science

      L’obscurantisme est défini comme l’attitude attribuée à ceux qui sont hostiles au progrès, au libre exercice de la raison, à la diffusion de l’instruction et du savoir. Cette percée des fondamentalistes religieux s’accompagne ainsi d’une attaque historique contre la science. L’un ne va pas sans l’autre.

      Un décret sur “L’abrogation Woke” a été publié par l’administration Trump il y a quelques jours. Le but ? Détruire toutes les politiques, programmes ou projets de recherche sur des sujets jugés “woke” et donc dangereux pour la sûreté de l’État : le réchauffement climatique et l’environnement, le genre, la diversité, la race, l’inclusion…

      Pour faire simple, une IA va pouvoir identifier des mots clés, au nombre de 120 pour le moment, afin de geler les financements, supprimer des publications… Reporterre dévoile par exemple que toute référence au réchauffement climatique a été purement et simplement effacée de sites internet fédéraux. Certaines pages ont carrément disparu, ne laissant qu’un »404 Not Found ». Parmi les 120 mots interdits, on retrouve “femme”, “préjugé”, “justice environnementale”, “accessibilité”.

      Autre conséquence dramatique : le CDC, le centre de contrôle des maladies, est la plus grosse agence gouvernementale étasunienne pour la santé publique. Une liste de 20 termes a été distribuée en interne afin de retirer ou d’éditer certaines informations, pourtant tout simplement vitales, du site. On trouve notamment dans cette liste les termes « transgenre », « LGBT », « personne enceinte », « biologiquement femme », « biologiquement homme »… Certaines pages sur le virus du SIDA ont également disparu.

      Au fil des siècles, les forces obscurantistes utilisaient l’autodafé afin de détruire les écrits que le pouvoir en place jugeait dangereux pour son propre pouvoir. Le plus célèbre est l’autodafé du 10 mai 1933 où 25.000 ouvrages considérés comme subversifs – auteurs marxistes, anarchistes, juifs…– furent consumés par les nazis. D’ailleurs, en 2023, des élus Républicains du Missouri s’étaient déjà mis en scène en train de brûler des livres considérés comme « woke » au lance-flamme.

      Si l’effacement de données en ligne paraît bien moins spectaculaire, il n’en est pas moins une tentative d’effacement total des pensées divergentes. Et il précède toujours d’autres violences.

      https://contre-attaque.net/2025/02/14/offensive-obscurantiste-aux-usa-trump-cree-un-bureau-de-la-foi-et-ce
      #université #foi

    • US science is feeling the Trump chill

      President Donald Trump’s assault on federal spending, climate science and diversity initiatives is fueling an existential crisis for the nation’s vast web of research institutions — and the scientists who power them.

      The administration is seeking to thwart research it considers a threat to Trump’s agenda — including anything connected to climate science or diversity, equity and inclusion, writes Chelsea Harvey. It has frozen billions of dollars in federal funding, paused grant reviews and cut critical support for university research.

      The language in Trump’s directives is so broad that universities and research institutions worry that projects that make mere mention of gender, race or equity could be on the chopping block. At least one university told researchers that even terms such as biodiversity could be flagged by AI-based grant review systems looking for DEI proposals.

      Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has added to the alarm by launching an online database last week identifying more than 3,400 grants funded by the National Science Foundation that he said promote “advanced neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda.”

      Federal courts have begun pushing back on some of Trump’s moves — by ordering an end to a sweeping funding freeze, for example — but the administration has been slow to comply and remained steadfast in its attempts to gut science agencies. The atmosphere of fear and confusion is leading some university supervisors to quietly advise faculty to censor their research proposals and other public-facing documents to comply with Trump’s directives.

      A professor at one U.S. university, who was granted anonymity, told Chelsea they were recently advised to remove terms including “climate change” and “greenhouse gas emissions” from research papers and other public documents.

      While past administrations have steered the focus of U.S. research in new directions — from nanotechnology to cancer research — those priorities were typically additive; they didn’t restrict research in other areas.

      Trump’s approach “will have long-term harmful consequences,” said Matt Owens, president of the Council on Government Relations, an association of academic research institutions.

      “One of our strengths as a nation is the federal government has invested across the board in curiosity-driven research, because over time this pays dividends,” he told Chelsea. “So an erosion of broad federal support for all areas of research will damage our ability to remain the global science and innovation leader.”

      Senior prosecutor quits over imperiled climate funds
      A top federal prosecutor in Washington resigned Tuesday rather than follow a Justice Department order to freeze a private bank account holding $20 billion of already allocated climate change funds, write Kyle Cheney, Josh Gerstein, Alex Guillén and Jean Chemnick.

      The resignation of Denise Cheung, the head of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, is one of the most dramatic outcomes yet from Trump’s effort to claw back congressionally authorized federal funding.

      Chung said interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin demanded her resignation after she refused to order the bank to freeze the grants — a step she said is permitted only if prosecutors have “probable cause” to suspect a crime was committed. The Environmental Protection Agency placed the money at Citibank last year to fund a “green bank” created by Congress.

      Trump attacks 50 years of green rules

      The Trump administration is working to unwind almost five decades of rules crafted and imposed under the #National_Environmental_Policy_Act, a foundational statute widely known as the “magna carta” of environmental laws, writes Hannah Northey.

      The plan is to rescind all regulations that the Council on Environmental Quality has issued to implement the bedrock law since 1977, when then-President Jimmy Carter signed an order directing the agency to issue rules under NEPA.

      Trump’s oil ambitions face harsh realities

      Trump wants to “unleash” American energy. The problem: U.S. oil production growth is starting to dwindle, writes Mike Soraghan.

      The nation’s once-hot shale plays are maturing. It’s getting more expensive to get significant amounts of new oil out of the ground. Some observers expect production to level off in the coming years and then start to decline by the early 2030s. Soon enough, oil companies may need to “drill, baby, drill” just to keep up current production levels rather than boosting them.

      https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2025/02/18/us-science-is-feeling-the-trump-chill-00204701

      #biodiversité #climat #changement_climatique #projets_de_recherche

    • The foundations of America’s prosperity are being dismantled

      Federal scientists warn that Americans could feel the effects of the new administration’s devastating cuts for decades to come.

      Ever since World War II, the US has been the global leader in science and technology—and benefited immensely from it. Research fuels American innovation and the economy in turn. Scientists around the world want to study in the US and collaborate with American scientists to produce more of that research. These international collaborations play a critical role in American soft power and diplomacy. The products Americans can buy, the drugs they have access to, the diseases they’re at risk of catching—are all directly related to the strength of American research and its connections to the world’s scientists.

      That scientific leadership is now being dismantled, according to more than 10 federal workers who spoke to MIT Technology Review, as the Trump administration—spearheaded by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—slashes personnel, programs, and agencies. Meanwhile, the president himself has gone after relationships with US allies.

      These workers come from several agencies, including the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce, the US Agency for International Development, and the National Science Foundation. All of them occupy scientific and technical roles, many of which the average American has never heard of but which are nevertheless critical, coordinating research, distributing funding, supporting policymaking, or advising diplomacy.

      They warn that dismantling the behind-the-scenes scientific research programs that backstop American life could lead to long-lasting, perhaps irreparable damage to everything from the quality of health care to the public’s access to next-generation consumer technologies. The US took nearly a century to craft its rich scientific ecosystem; if the unraveling that has taken place over the past month continues, Americans will feel the effects for decades to come.

      Most of the federal workers spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk or for fear of being targeted. Many are completely stunned and terrified by the scope and totality of the actions. While every administration brings its changes, keeping the US a science and technology leader has never been a partisan issue. No one predicted the wholesale assault on these foundations of American prosperity.

      “If you believe that innovation is important to economic development, then throwing a wrench in one of the most sophisticated and productive innovation machines in world history is not a good idea,” says Deborah Seligsohn, an assistant professor of political science at Villanova University who worked for two decades in the State Department on science issues. “They’re setting us up for economic decline.”
      The biggest funder of innovation

      The US currently has the most top-quality research institutes in the world. This includes world-class universities like MIT (which publishes MIT Technology Review) and the University of California, Berkeley; national labs like Oak Ridge and Los Alamos; and federal research facilities run by agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Defense. Much of this network was developed by the federal government after World War II to bolster the US position as a global superpower.

      Before the Trump administration’s wide-ranging actions, which now threaten to slash federal research funding, the government remained by far the largest supporter of scientific progress. Outside of its own labs and facilities, it funded more than 50% of research and development across higher education, according to data from the National Science Foundation. In 2023, that came to nearly $60 billion out of the $109 billion that universities spent on basic science and engineering.

      The return on these investments is difficult to measure. It can often take years or decades for this kind of basic science research to have tangible effects on the lives of Americans and people globally, and on the US’s place in the world. But history is littered with examples of the transformative effect that this funding produces over time. The internet and GPS were first developed through research backed by the Department of Defense, as was the quantum dot technology behind high-resolution QLED television screens. Well before they were useful or commercially relevant, the development of neural networks that underpin nearly all modern AI systems was substantially supported by the National Science Foundation. The decades-long drug discovery process that led to Ozempic was incubated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health. Microchips. Self-driving cars. MRIs. The flu shot. The list goes on and on.

      In her 2013 book The Entrepreneurial State, Mariana Mazzucato, a leading economist studying innovation at University College London, found that every major technological transformation in the US, from electric cars to Google to the iPhone, can trace its roots back to basic science research once funded by the federal government. If the past offers any lesson, that means every major transformation in the future could be shortchanged with the destruction of that support.

      The Trump administration’s distaste for regulation will arguably be a boon in the short term for some parts of the tech industry, including crypto and AI. But the federal workers said the president’s and Musk’s undermining of basic science research will hurt American innovation in the long run. “Rather than investing in the future, you’re burning through scientific capital,” an employee at the State Department said. “You can build off the things you already know, but you’re not learning anything new. Twenty years later, you fall behind because you stopped making new discoveries.”

      A global currency

      The government doesn’t just give money, either. It supports American science in numerous other ways, and the US reaps the returns. The Department of State helps attract the best students from around the world to American universities. Amid stagnating growth in the number of homegrown STEM PhD graduates, recruiting foreign students remains one of the strongest pathways for the US to expand its pool of technical talent, especially in strategic areas like batteries and semiconductors. Many of those students stay for years, if not the rest of their lives; even if they leave the country, they’ve already spent some of their most productive years in the US and will retain a wealth of professional connections with whom they’ll collaborate, thereby continuing to contribute to US science.

      The State Department also establishes agreements between the US and other countries and helps broker partnerships between American and international universities. That helps scientists collaborate across borders on everything from global issues like climate change to research that requires equipment on opposite sides of the world, such as the measurement of gravitational waves.

      The international development work of USAID in global health, poverty reduction, and conflict alleviation—now virtually shut down in its entirety—was designed to build up goodwill toward the US globally; it improved regional stability for decades. In addition to its inherent benefits, this allowed American scientists to safely access diverse geographies and populations, as well as plant and animal species not found in the US. Such international interchange played just as critical a role as government funding in many crucial inventions.

      Several federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also help collect and aggregate critical data on disease, health trends, air quality, weather, and more from disparate sources that feed into the work of scientists across the country.

      The National Institutes of Health, for example, has since 2015 been running the Precision Medicine Initiative, the only effort of its kind to collect extensive and granular health data from over 1 million Americans who volunteer their medical records, genetic history, and even Fitbit data to help researchers understand health disparities and develop personalized and more effective treatments for disorders from heart and lung disease to cancer. The data set, which is too expensive for any one university to assemble and maintain, has already been used in hundreds of papers that will lay the foundation for the next generation of life-saving pharmaceuticals.

      Beyond fueling innovation, a well-supported science and technology ecosystem bolsters US national security and global influence. When people want to study at American universities, attend international conferences hosted on American soil, or move to the US to work or to found their own companies, the US stays the center of global innovation activity. This ensures that the country continues to get access to the best people and ideas, and gives it an outsize role in setting global scientific practices and priorities. US research norms, including academic freedom and a robust peer review system, become global research norms that lift the overall quality of science. International agencies like the World Health Organization take significant cues from American guidance.

      US scientific leadership has long been one of the country’s purest tools of soft power and diplomacy as well. Countries keen to learn from the American innovation ecosystem and to have access to American researchers and universities have been more prone to partner with the US and align with its strategic priorities.

      Just one example: Science diplomacy has long played an important role in maintaining the US’s strong relationship with the Netherlands, which is home to ASML, the only company in the world that can produce the extreme ultraviolet lithography machines needed to produce the most advanced semiconductors. These are critical for both AI development and national security.

      International science cooperation has also served as a stabilizing force in otherwise difficult relationships. During the Cold War, the US and USSR continued to collaborate on the International Space Station; during the recent heightened economic competition between the US and China, the countries have remained each other’s top scientific partners. “Actively working together to solve problems that we both care about helps maintain the connections and the context but also helps build respect,” Seligsohn says.

      The federal government itself is a significant beneficiary of the country’s convening power for technical expertise. Among other things, experts both inside and outside the government support its sound policymaking in science and technology. During the US Senate AI Insight Forums, co-organized by Senator Chuck Schumer through the fall of 2023, for example, the Senate heard from more than 150 experts, many of whom were born abroad and studying at American universities, working at or advising American companies, or living permanently in the US as naturalized American citizens.

      Federal scientists and technical experts at government agencies also work on wide-ranging goals critical to the US, including building resilience in the face of an increasingly erratic climate; researching strategic technologies such as next-generation battery technology to reduce the country’s reliance on minerals not found in the US; and monitoring global infectious diseases to prevent the next pandemic.

      “Every issue that the US faces, there are people that are trying to do research on it and there are partnerships that have to happen,” the State Department employee said.

      A system in jeopardy

      Now the breadth and velocity of the Trump administration’s actions has led to an unprecedented assault on every pillar upholding American scientific leadership.

      For starters, the purging of tens of thousands—and perhaps soon hundreds of thousands—of federal workers is removing scientists and technologists from the government and paralyzing the ability of critical agencies to function. Across multiple agencies, science and technology fellowship programs, designed to bring in talented early-career staff with advanced STEM degrees, have shuttered. Many other federal scientists were among the thousands who were terminated as probationary employees, a status they held because of the way scientific roles are often contractually structured.

      Some agencies that were supporting or conducting their own research, including the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, are no longer functionally operational. USAID has effectively shuttered, eliminating a bastion of US expertise, influence, and credibility overnight.

      “Diplomacy is built on relationships. If we’ve closed all these clinics and gotten rid of technical experts in our knowledge base inside the government, why would any foreign government have respect for the US in our ability to hold our word and in our ability to actually be knowledgeable?” a terminated USAID worker said. “I really hope America can save itself.”

      Now the Trump administration has sought to reverse some terminations after discovering that many were key to national security, including nuclear safety employees responsible for designing, building, and maintaining the country’s nuclear weapons arsenal. But many federal workers I spoke to can no longer imagine staying in the public sector. Some are considering going into industry. Others are wondering whether it will be better to move abroad.

      “It’s just such a waste of American talent,” said Fiona Coleman, a terminated federal scientist, her voice cracking with emotion as she described the long years of schooling and training she and her colleagues went through to serve the government.

      Many fear the US has also singlehandedly kneecapped its own ability to attract talent from abroad. Over the last 10 years, even as American universities have continued to lead the world, many universities in other countries have rapidly leveled up. That includes those in Canada, where liberal immigration policies and lower tuition fees have driven a 200% increase in international student enrollment over the last decade, according to Anna Esaki-Smith, cofounder of a higher-education research consultancy called Education Rethink and author of Make College Your Superpower.

      Germany has also seen an influx, thanks to a growing number of English-taught programs and strong connections between universities and German industry. Chinese students, who once represented the largest share of foreign students in the US, are increasingly staying at home or opting to study in places like Hong Kong, Singapore, and the UK.

      During the first Trump administration, many international students were already more reluctant to come to the US because of the president’s hostile rhetoric. With the return and rapid escalation of that rhetoric, Esaki-Smith is hearing from some universities that international students are declining their admissions offers.

      Add to that the other recent developments—the potential dramatic cuts in federal research funding, the deletion of scores of rich public data sets on health and the environment, the clampdown on academic freedom for research that appears related to diversity, equity, and inclusion and the fear that these restrictions could ultimately encompass other politically charged topics like climate change or vaccines—and many more international science and engineering students could decide to head elsewhere.

      “I’ve been hearing this increasingly from several postdocs and early-career professors, fearing the cuts in NIH or NSF grants, that they’re starting to look for funding or job opportunities in other countries,” Coleman told me. “And then we’re going to be training up the US’s competitors.”

      The attacks could similarly weaken the productivity of those who stay at American universities. While many of the Trump administration’s actions are now being halted and scrutinized by US judges, the chaos has weakened a critical prerequisite for tackling the toughest research problems: a long-term stable environment. With reports that the NSF is combing through research grants for words like “women,” “diverse,” and “institutional” to determine whether they violate President Trump’s executive order on DEIA programs, a chilling effect is also setting in among federally funded academics uncertain whether they’ll get caught in the dragnet.

      To scientists abroad, the situation in the US government has marked American institutions and researchers as potentially unreliable partners, several federal workers told me. If international researchers think collaborations with the US can end at any moment when funds are abruptly pulled or certain topics or keywords are suddenly blacklisted, many of them could steer clear and look to other countries. “I’m really concerned about the instability we’re showing,” another employee at the State Department said. “What’s the point in even engaging? Because science is a long-term initiative and process that outlasts administrations and political cycles.”

      Meanwhile, international scientists have far more options these days for high-caliber colleagues to collaborate with outside America. In recent years, for example, China has made a remarkable ascent to become a global peer in scientific discoveries. By some metrics, it has even surpassed the US; it started accounting for more of the top 1% of most-cited papers globally, often called the Nobel Prize tier, back in 2019 and has continued to improve the quality of the rest of its research.

      Where Chinese universities can also entice international collaborators with substantial resources, the US is more limited in its ability to offer tangible funding, the State employee said. Until now, the US has maintained its advantage in part through the prestige of its institutions and its more open cultural norms, including stronger academic freedom. But several federal scientists warn that this advantage is dissipating.

      “America is made up of so many different people contributing to it. There’s such a powerful global community that makes this country what it is, especially in science and technology and academia and research. We’re going to lose that; there’s not a chance in the world that we’re not going to lose that through stuff like this,” says Brigid Cakouros, a federal scientist who was also terminated from USAID. “I have no doubt that the international science community will ultimately be okay. It’ll just be a shame for the US to isolate themselves from it.”

      https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/02/21/1112274/the-foundations-of-americas-prosperity-are-being-dismantled

    • Sauver les données scientifiques de la purge numérique de l’administration Trump

      Peu après l’assermentation de Donald Trump, des milliers de pages web du gouvernement fédéral américain ont disparu. Heureusement, des chercheurs canadiens et américains avaient déjà archivé numériquement une bonne partie de ces sites.

      La Dre Angela Rasmussen n’en revient pas. Des milliers de pages des Centres pour le contrôle et la prévention des maladies (CDC) comportant des données inestimables sur la santé ont été retirées du web, à la demande de l’administration Trump.

      Cette virologue de l’Université de la Saskatchewan savait que la santé et la science seraient dans la mire de la nouvelle administration Trump.

      "Je n’aurais jamais pensé qu’on serait aussi rapidement dans une situation aussi orwellienne." (Une citation de Dre Angela Rasmussen, virologue et chercheuse à l’Université de la Saskatchewan)

      Lorsque cette chercheuse, d’origine américaine, a entendu d’un ami journaliste que les CDC retireraient sous peu des données scientifiques de son site, elle a contacté en urgence un ami bio-informaticien aux États-Unis.

      "Je lui ai demandé s’il pouvait cloner tout le site. Il pensait que je faisais des blagues. Mais j’étais très sérieuse."

      Avec moins d’une journée de préavis, les deux ont passé de longues heures à archiver le site.

      Ils sont ensuite entrés en contact avec Charles Gaba, un analyste de données sur la santé publique du Michigan, qui lui aussi avait commencé la même tâche, quelques jours plus tôt.

      Ils ont combiné leurs efforts pour archiver un maximum de pages et de bases de données, non seulement des CDC, mais aussi de l’Agence américaine des médicaments (FDA) et une partie du site de l’USAID, le programme qui a été sabré par Elon Musk et son « département de l’Efficience gouvernementale » (DOGE).

      "Je suis fâché. J’aurais dû commencer le travail plus tôt. J’avais réalisé dès le soir de l’élection qu’il y avait un risque qu’on efface des sites gouvernementaux. Dans l’urgence, on a peut-être manqué certaines choses", dit Charles Gaba.

      Mardi, un juge fédéral américain a délivré une ordonnance temporaire obligeant les CDC et la FDA de rétablir toutes les informations publiques sur leurs sites web.

      Selon l’administration Trump, le retrait de ces pages n’est pas nécessairement définitif, et elle affirme que les informations peuvent être consultées par l’entremise de la machine Wayback de l’Internet Archive.

      D’ailleurs, s’il est possible de le faire, c’est grâce au travail exhaustif d’Internet Archive, un organisme à but non lucratif qui archive des sites web et qui rend accessibles au public des copies de ces sites.

      Depuis 2004, dans le cadre du projet de librairie démocratique, toutes les pages web des gouvernements fédéraux canadien et américain sont systématiquement archivées au début et à la fin de chaque mandat.

      Le matériel provenant des États-Unis est sauvegardé sur des serveurs en Colombie-Britannique, au Canada, et celui du Canada, sur des serveurs aux États-Unis.

      L’archivage se fait grâce à une étroite collaboration entre Canadiens et Américains, explique Brewster Kahle, le fondateur d’Internet Archive.

      Par exemple, il y a aussi des professeurs de l’Université de Guelph et de l’Université de Toronto qui travaillent avec l’Environmental Data Governance Initiative (EDGI) pour préserver les données sur les changements climatiques de l’Agence de protection de l’environnement des États-Unis, rapporte CBC News (Nouvelle fenêtre).

      Pour Brewster Kahle, il est primordial de sauvegarder le maximum de documents, même s’ils semblent peu importants. "On ne sait jamais quand et pourquoi on en aura besoin."

      Les informations contenues sur les sites web gouvernementaux relèvent du domaine public et doivent être accessibles à tous, rappelle Brewster Kahle.

      "Cette information appartient aux Américains. Personne n’a le droit de la censurer ou de la retenir." (Une citation de Brewster Kahle, fondateur d’Internet Archive)

      Une crise en santé et en science

      La disparition des données inquiète particulièrement la Dre Rasmussen, qui est virologue.

      "Je n’exagère pas quand je dis que ça sera destructeur pour la santé publique."

      Par exemple, les données sur la propagation de la grippe aviaire aux États-Unis sont particulièrement importantes en ce moment pour le monde entier. "S’il y a une pandémie de H5N1, on pourrait prévenir des millions de morts."

      Et pourtant, le rapport hebdomadaire sur la mortalité n’a pas été publié comme prévu le 15 janvier. "C’est la première fois en 80 ans que ça arrive", dit Charles Gaba.

      De plus, avec la nomination de Robert F. Kennedy Jr. à la tête de la santé, qui tient depuis des années des propos antivaccins, la Dre Rasmussen craint que les informations qui seront accessibles soient davantage politiques que scientifiques. Déjà, les recommandations du comité sur l’immunisation ont disparu du site web des CDC.

      Charles Gaba craint que certaines bases de données ne soient plus mises à jour. Et, même si des données sont publiées, il se demande si elles seront valides. "Ils ont semé un doute. Je n’ai plus confiance."
      "Des autodafés numériques"

      Le retrait de milliers de pages web des sites gouvernementaux survient après une directive de l’administration Trump d’éliminer toute mention de diversité, d’inclusion ou d’équité. Toute page avec la mention de mots provenant d’une liste préétablie doit être retirée.

      "Ils effacent tout ce qui inclut ces mots, même sans contexte et sans discrimination. Ça touche tout le monde qui n’est pas un homme blanc hétérosexuel et chrétien." (Une citation de Charles Gaba, analyste de données sur la santé publique du Michigan)

      Ainsi, des pages sur la prévention des maladies chroniques, des lignes directrices pour le traitement de maladies sexuellement transmissibles, sur les signes avant-coureurs de la maladie d’Alzheimer, sur une formation pour prévenir les surdoses et sur des recommandations sur les vaccins destinés aux femmes enceintes, ont été supprimées.

      Le retrait comprend aussi des pages sur la violence faite aux femmes et aux personnes LGBTQ+, et sur la dépression post-partum.

      La Dre Ramussen est estomaquée. "On a retiré les données sur le VIH et la variole simienne parce que ça touche principalement des personnes marginalisées, des femmes, des personnes de la communauté LGBTQ+ et les personnes racisées. Ça place ces personnes dans une situation encore plus vulnérable."

      Pour elle, la diversité, l’équité, l’inclusion sont des valeurs au cœur de la santé publique.

      Charles Gaba ne mâche pas ses mots : en procédant de la sorte, l’administration Trump procède à des autodafés comme l’avait fait le régime nazi dans les années 1930. Cette fois, "ce sont des autodafés numériques".

      "Ils effacent ces informations parce qu’ils veulent prendre des décisions en fonction de leurs politiques, plutôt qu’en fonction des données probantes", déplore-t-il.

      Pour Brewster Kahle, il s’agit d’un moment de prise de conscience. "Ce sont dans des moments comme ça que les bibliothèques souffrent. Des livres sont bannis, les subventions pour les bibliothèques et archives sont réduites, on criminalise le travail des bibliothécaires."

      Cette tendance à vouloir effacer le passé numérique se produit partout dans le monde, affirme-t-il. Il dit aussi craindre la perte de plus en plus d’archives lors de catastrophes naturelles, dont le risque est multiplié par les changements climatiques.

      Pour la Dre Rasmussen, archiver toute cette information est sa façon de s’opposer aux décisions de l’administration Trump. "C’est ma façon de résister au fascisme."

      https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2140521/donald-trump-donnees-scientifiques-web

    • Donald Trump’s ‘war on woke’ is fast becoming a war on science. That’s incredibly dangerous

      Contrary to claims by the US president, we have found that diversity initiatives result in better scientists and greater progress.

      Donald Trump’s attacks on diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) initiatives since his January inauguration have been intense, indiscriminate and escalating. A tragic plane crash was baselessly blamed on DEI. All DEI programmes within public bodies have been ended and private contractors face cancellation if they also don’t comply. Webpages that defend religious diversity in the context of Holocaust remembrance have been taken down.

      Science and academia have been particularly targeted. Universities are threatened with losing federal funding if they support DEI. Government reports and government-funded research are being held back if they include prohibited terms such as “gender”, “pregnant person”, “women”, “elderly”, or “disabled”. Grants funded by the National Institutes of Health are being cancelled if they address diversity, equality or inclusion in any form.

      What is more, this total “war on woke” (more accurately: “fight against fairness”) is happening in the UK as well as the US. Already, British companies and British watchdogs are abandoning their diversity drives. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has described diversity initiatives as a “poison”.

      These attacks are rooted in wilful distortions of what DEI is all about. There are two big lies that need to be nailed. The first is that diversity and inclusion initiatives compromise the quality of employees by selecting incompetent candidates because of their minority group membership. The second is that DEI is a distraction that holds back success. Let’s consider each in turn, using the field of science itself as an example.

      The notion that DEI involves putting group membership before ability and leads to the appointment of incompetent candidates is a misrepresentation of what DEI initiatives are all about. Scientific ability is not restricted to one sex, ethnicity or religion, or to the able-bodied. Embracing diversity has the simple advantage of widening the pool of talent from which scientists are drawn. DEI initiatives are about ensuring that less competent members of the most privileged groups are not advantaged over more competent members of less privileged groups.

      Bias starts at school, particularly in the physical sciences, where both girls and boys consider these “boy subjects” by the time they are teenagers. Even once you start your academic career, bias affects grant funding decisions and publication rates. Women and minorities face additional barriers to career progression: for instance, both female and ethnic minority scientists receive less credit for their work than male or white scientists respectively. Bias affects whether you feel at home in the scientific workplace. Institutions that tackle the many workplace barriers for women and ethnic minorities (child-unfriendly working hours, tolerance of harassment, culturally insensitive socialisation practices) have higher retention rates among women and minority researchers. Diverse workplaces attract more diverse staff to apply for jobs – creating a positive feedback loop. And we know that scientific research teams and institutions that prioritise diversity perform better.

      As for the second myth that DEI is a barrier to success, diversity actually improves the quality of science. Evidence shows that scientific papers produced by ethnically diverse teams are more impactful than those written by homogeneous teams. Similarly, studies show that diverse teams consider more alternatives and make better decisions.

      Scientists from diverse backgrounds raise new research questions and priorities – especially questions that affect minoritised communities. The lack of women in the higher echelons of biomedical science has led to a comparative lack of research into menstrual and reproductive health problems. The lack of black scientists has led to a neglect of conditions that affect black people such as sickle cell disease. And when it comes to the intersection of “race” and sex, things are even worse. It is only in the last few years that it even became known that black and Asian women are much more likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth than white women.

      Medical sciences and social sciences have long suffered from a lack of diversity in research design, leading to worse medicine because findings do not apply to all populations. For example, clinical trials have tended to test treatments mainly on men and on white people, leading to poorer health outcomes for women or minorities. A diverse group of researchers makes members of minorities more willing to volunteer for trials and helps ensure diverse participant recruitment. This improves scientific validity. It also increases the trust of minorities in the outputs of research (say, the development of new vaccines) and hence the societal impact of the research (say, their willingness to get vaccinated).

      All in all, ensuring diversity and equality and inclusion among scientists makes for better scientists and better science. While our examples are drawn from science, they are true much more broadly. DEI initiatives are about ensuring that we always select the best irrespective of group membership, not about selecting by group membership irrespective of who is best. Science is fundamentally about discovering truth through rigorous, unbiased, transparent inquiry and narrow pools of talent or perspectives make that much harder. Therefore, DEI initiatives are necessary to achieving the core mission of science, not a distraction from it.

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/26/donald-trump-war-on-woke-science-diversity

  • I knew one day I’d have to watch powerful men burn the world down – I just didn’t expect them to be such losers | Rebecca Shaw | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/16/i-knew-one-day-id-have-to-watch-powerful-men-burn-the-world-down-i-just
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/95dd987b066a06a4e24d89ac96acf91a85e1522a/0_131_4000_2400/master/4000.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-ali

    I knew that one day we might have to watch as capitalism and greed and bigotry led to a world where powerful men, deserving or not, would burn it all down. What I didn’t expect, and don’t think I could have foreseen, is how incredibly cringe it would all be. I have been prepared for evil, for greed, for cruelty, for injustice – but I did not anticipate that the people in power would also be such huge losers.

    I’ve always been someone who cannot tolerate embarrassment. I hate being embarrassed more than just about any other emotion and I’ve always skipped content based on cringe humour like Meet the Parents, Borat or Nathan for You. It makes my skin crawl and it makes the contents of my stomach try to crawl out of my mouth. But I cannot skip world events.

    Nor can I skip Musk’s clear desperation, even as he holds this much wealth and power in his hands, to be thought of as cool. There are endless examples of him embarrassing himself while attempting to be funny or to gain respect. Unfortunately, while you may be able to buy power, it’s impossible to buy a good personality. Watching his Nigel-no-friends attempts to be popular, his endless pathetic tweets that read as though they come from the brain of an 11-year-old poser, has made me start to believe we should bring back bullying. If yet another humiliating report in the last couple of days is to be believed, he appears even to have lost the respect of some of his gamer audience, who the report claims suspect that he may have been lying about his achievements in hardcore gaming (cursed sentence).

    Zuckerberg is a different kind of cringe – but cringe all the same. His cringe moments drip through more sparingly but, when they do, my body tries to turn inside out at my bellybutton. His physical makeover for Maga reasons, performing music because no one will stop him, trying to look cool on a surfboard – all these are extremely difficult to watch. He has been trying to suck up to Trump, going on Joe Rogan’s show to say society has been “neutered” and companies need “more masculine energy”.

    Putting on what is clearly a bro disguise to join the boys’ club and sit at the big boy table – it should feel humiliating. This came as Zuckerberg rolled back hate speech and factchecking rules at Meta, in a clear swerve to the right before Trump’s inauguration. What could be more masculine and cool than selling out vulnerable communities and women to impress the alpha male?

    Climate crises keep coming, genocides continue, women keep getting murdered, art is being strangled to death by AI, bigotry is on the rise, social progress is being rolled back … AND these men insist on being cringe? It’s a rotten cherry on top. This combination of evil and embarrassment is a unique horror, one that science fiction has failed to prepare us for. The second-hand embarrassment we have to endure gets even more potent when combined with other modern influences on young men, like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate.

  • Joan Didion and Mike Davis understood LA through its fires. Even they couldn’t predict this week | Adrian Daub | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/11/joan-didion-mike-davis-los-angeles-fires
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/32e458c2ab5567492f2cb10058e919aff93468cc/0_310_5422_3254/master/5422.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-ali

    Adrian Daub sur les incendies de Los Angeles au travers de la relecture de deux livres importants sur la régularité des incendies lors des épisodes Santa Anna.

    Fire is an inextricable part of the region’s identity, as the writers knew. But the way this divided city burns has been transformed
    Sat 11 Jan 2025 19.00 CET

    Talking about fire and Los Angeles is an exercise in repetition. Southern California does have seasons, Joan Didion once noted in Blue Nights, among them “the season when the fire comes”.

    Fire in Los Angeles has a singular ability to shock, with its destruction that takes “grimly familiar pathways” down the canyons and into the subdivisions. The phrase comes from the writer and activist Mike Davis’s 1995 essay The Case for Letting Malibu Burn, and it is as true for the fires as for our talk of the fires. Even our reflections take on that grim familiarity: we cite Didion citing Nathanael West. We fall in with the great writers of this great city who are always so ready to judge it.

    LA’s fires are usually interpreted as a verdict on LA. Eve Babitz tells the story of the silent film star Alla Nazimova, who had to save her possessions from a fire and decided to rescue none of them: “It’s a morality tale,” Babitz says, “of the unimportance of material things, though there are those who will say it’s about how awful LA is.” Davis was different: in books such as City of Quartz, Ecology of Fear and Dead Cities: And Other Tales, he defended the city and its people, reserving his indictments for the forces of untrammeled capitalism and white supremacy that had molded it into near-uninhabitability. He read the city as a sign of what was to come, leery of a world that had assigned this complex, maddening, beguiling place “the double role of utopia and dystopia for advanced capitalism”.

    Davis wrote The Case for Letting Malibu Burn under the impression of the conflagrations of the late fall of 1993 – including one in Topanga Canyon that dived down the hillsides towards Malibu, and one in Eaton Canyon that ripped through Altadena. Two places, that is, that are aflame this week again.
    Didion smokes on porch overlooking beach next to man and girl
    Joan Didion, right, with her husband, John Gregory Dunne, and daughter Quintana Roo Dunne in Malibu in 1976. Photograph: John Bryson/Getty Images

    And yet, without much changing, much has changed.

    #Adrian_Daub #Los_angeles #Joan_Didion #Mike_Davis

  • #Emmanuel_Macron was the great liberal hope for France and Europe. How did it all go so wrong?

    The French president’s failures offer an object lesson in what happens when liberalism is stripped of its morality and values.

    When Emmanuel Macron was first elected in the spring of 2017, we were told that he was the future of liberal pluralism. The BBC said his victory was “a repudiation of the populist, antiestablishment wave” of that time. He was “the next leader of Europe” according to a Time Magazine cover. The Economist went one further. Its cover asked if he was Europe’s “saviour” and declared that he was mounting a revolution in democratic politics “without pike or pitchfork”.

    Seven years later, and Macron’s “peaceful”, “democratic” “revolution” is in ruins, as the president struggles to navigate a political crisis of his own making. In June, he called legislative elections that were unnecessary, lost them, and refused to concede defeat. Over the summer, France went through the second-longest period without a government in its recent history. The resulting Michel Barnier-led government was only able to survive for as long as it did thanks to a compact with the far right, before it crumbled after a vote of no confidence held on 4 December. Although Macron has now named François Bayrou as prime minister, it is unclear how this solves the fundamental problem that both the president and his agenda are widely hated in the country, and broadly opposed in the parliament.

    The balance sheet of Macronism explains his losing streak. When he took office, France’s deficit was 2.6% of GDP, in October 2024 it was at 6.2%. Who were the beneficiaries of such profligacy? They certainly aren’t public-school students and their stressed-out teachers having to work with the biggest classes in Europe. Nor are they the growing numbers of people living in “medical deserts”, where there is insufficient access to doctors or surgeons. The ultra-rich however, have done very well, with the top four fortunes in France increasing by 87% since 2020 according to Oxfam. Macronomics resembles Trussonomics in slow motion. It was a programme of unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy that the Macronists wrongly assumed would increase economic activity and therefore the tax take. According to Macron’s own economy guru, “this was not a bad strategy, but it didn’t work”.

    If his economic record undermines the narrative that Macron was the candidate of innovation and sound finances, his social and political record demonstrates that the Macron revolution was neither peaceful, nor particularly democratic, and it calls into question the labels of “liberal” and “centrist”, so often applied to the French president. Police violence has got markedly worse under Macron, with the number of bullets fired and people killed by police increasingly slightly, and the number of rubber bullets fired on crowds skyrocketing. He has also helped normalise the far right, talking up their preferred themes, using their language and passing an immigration law that Marine Le Pen hailed as an “ideological victory”.

    On top of this, he has governed in an increasingly anti-democratic manner, pushing through wildly unpopular measures using article 49.3 of the constitution to pass laws without a parliamentary vote, and trying to shut the leftwing New Popular Front (NPF) alliance out of government, despite it winning the most seats in this summer’s legislative elections. The activist Ugo Palheta writes about the process of the fascistisation of French society as parts of the media, civil service and business elite are radicalised to the right. Macron has handily helped this process along, with the far right achieving their best electoral results ever this summer.

    Recently, Macron has been fighting to try to keep the Netflix hit Emily in Paris in France. It is a fittingly absurd quest. Emily in Paris, like the summer Olympics, is a fantasy image of the France that Macron wants to rule, and intended to create. But the archetypal subject of Macron’s France is not Emily, the denizen of a startup nation inhabited exclusively by the rich and sexy, but rather more like Vanessa Langard, a yellow vest protester I met recently. Langard had been a decorator, and had to take a second job to help pay for her grandmother’s care. Langard was shot in the face and blinded by a rubber bullet at a protest in December 2018. When we spoke, she was distraught, sobbing as she described her anger at the refusal of the French state to designate her a victim of police violence, and how her mother comments that she has become more subdued since the assault.

    Vanessa’s life shows us the effects of Macronism in miniature. She was caught up in his crackdown on dissent and blinded by the increasingly militaristic weapons the state deploys against its citizens. Now 40, she is unable to work, and lives on the meagre benefits paid out to disabled people in France, one of hundreds of thousands pushed into precarity under Macron. She requires care, and so relies on an increasingly strained health system that the government wants to cut further. She is one of the 56% of French people who say life has become more difficult due to low incomes and rising costs, one of the 85% of people who fear that the next budget will negatively affect their financial situation, and one of the 77% who understand this to be the result of political decisions.

    Macron has more than two years to go until the next election, but he shows no sign of changing course. Over the summer, Libération revealed that there had been a series of secret meetings between Macronists and members of the far-right National Rally party brokered by Macron’s close adviser, Thierry Solère, helping normalise them further. Edouard Philippe, an ally of Macron and potential successor, is reported to have told Le Pen that he wants the next election to be a contest of “project against project” without “moral critique”.

    It does not bode well for liberalism that its pro-EU poster boy has become like King Lear, blinded by narcissism and wilfully handing the kingdom to a destructive force he helped create. Macron offers an object lesson in the exhaustion of liberalism. When the form and appearance of liberalism remains, but its content and values are evacuated, what remains is a hollow, brittle thing. It becomes unable to improve the lives of anyone but the wealthy, unable to respond to inconvenient facts such as disappointing election results, unable to articulate even a moral critique of the far right which seeks to usurp it, and unable politically to stop its rise. Macronism has failed.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/02/emmanuel-macron-liberal-france-europe
    #Macron #libéralisme #moralité #valeurs #crise_politique #macronisme #économie #riches #pauvres #violences_policières #49.3 #fascistisation #portrait #bilan #Macron_vu_de_l'étranger #échec

  • The term ‘antisemitism’ is being weaponised and stripped of meaning – and that’s incredibly dangerous | Rachel Shabi | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/31/antisemitism-israel-gaza-war-right

    It’s the sort of dissonant mess from which any reasonable person might decide to quietly step away. Because what is the uninvolved onlooker supposed to make of it all? While researching my new book on the subject, several people I spoke to told me they were afraid to even ask about antisemitism, for fear that this might itself be construed as antisemitism. This is another clear sign, if any other were needed, that something has gone badly wrong in the way we talk about the issue.

    #antisémitisme

  • How has the French far right managed to cancel a Black anti-racism scholar for ‘racism’?
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/03/how-has-the-french-far-right-managed-to-cancel-a-black-anti-racism-scho

    Maboula Soumahoro is a renowned French scholar and public intellectual. The holder of a PhD earned through studies both in France and at Columbia University in the US, she is an associate professor at the University of Tours, a specialist on the African diaspora, and one of France’s foremost academics when it comes to race relations.

    So when the European parliament decided to invite her to an internal event last month as part of a dialogue to discuss ways to “promote equality and inclusion in the workplace”, it made perfect sense.

    But the event never happened. First, the French far-right MEP Mathilde Androuët wrote to Roberta Metsola, the president of the parliament, seeking the cancellation of the event on the basis that Soumahoro had made statements with racist undertones and casting doubt on her expertise. Then the French far-right MEP, Marion Maréchal, formerly a member of the National Rally, led by her aunt, Marine Le Pen, weighed in, stepping up the pressure with a post on X that denounced Soumahoro in even more forceful terms as “an anti-White speaker”.

    #Maboula_Soumahoro

  • Netanyahu’s boycott of Haaretz won’t stop us reporting the grim truth about Israel’s wars | Aluf Benn | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/26/benjamin-netanyahu-haaretz-israel-gaza-lebanon-war

    Netanyahu’s boycott of Haaretz won’t stop us reporting the grim truth about Israel’s wars

    Aluf Benn

    Unlike most Israeli news outlets, my paper shows the suffering in Gaza and Lebanon. That’s why the government has targeted us

  • How to survive the broligarchy: 20 lessons for the post-truth world | Carole Cadwalladr | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/17/how-to-survive-the-broligarchy-20-lessons-for-the-post-truth-world-dona
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ea95a5aedfd34245f560f94f462cc7267dc252de/0_333_5000_3000/master/5000.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-ali

    1 When someone tells you who they are, believe them. Last week Donald Trump appointed a director of intelligence who spouts Russian propaganda, a Christian nationalist crusader as secretary of defence, and a secretary of health who is a vaccine sceptic. If Trump was seeking to destroy American democracy, the American state and American values, this is how he’d do it.

    2 Journalists are first, but everyone else is next. Trump has announced multibillion-dollar lawsuits against “the enemy camp”: newspapers and publishers. His proposed FBI director is on record as wanting to prosecute certain journalists. Journalists, publishers, writers, academics are always in the first wave. Doctors, teachers, accountants will be next. Authoritarianism is as predictable as a Swiss train. It’s already later than you think.

    3 To name is to understand. This is McMuskism: it’s McCarthyism on steroids, political persecution + Trump + Musk + Silicon Valley surveillance tools. It’s the dawn of a new age of political witch-hunts, where burning at the stake meets data harvesting and online mobs.

    4 If that sounds scary, it’s because that’s the plan. Trump’s administration will be incompetent and reckless but individuals will be targeted, institutions will cower, organisations will crumble. Fast. The chilling will be real and immediate.

    5 You have more power than you think. We’re supposed to feel powerless. That’s the strategy. But we’re not. If you’re a US institution or organisation, form an emergency committee. Bring in experts. Learn from people who have lived under authoritarianism. Ask advice.

    6 Do not kiss the ring. Do not bend to power. Power will come to you, anyway. Don’t make it easy. Not everyone can stand and fight. But nobody needs to bend the knee until there’s an actual memo to that effect. WAIT FOR THE MEMO.

    7 Know who you are. This list is a homage to Yale historian, Timothy Snyder. His On Tyranny, published in 2017, is the essential guide to the age of authoritarianism. His first command, “Do not obey in advance”, is what has been ringing, like tinnitus, in my ears ever since the Washington Post refused to endorse Kamala Harris. In some weird celestial stroke of luck, he calls me as I’m writing this and I ask for his updated advice: “Know what you stand for and what you think is good.”

    8 Protect your private life. The broligarchy doesn’t want you to have one. Read Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: they need to know exactly who you are to sell you more shit. We’re now beyond that. Surveillance Authoritarianism is next. Watch The Lives of Others, the beautifully told film about surveillance in 80s east Berlin. Act as if you are now living in East Germany and Meta/Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp is the Stasi. It is.

    9 Throw up the Kool-Aid. You drank it. That’s OK. We all did. But now is the time to stick your fingers down your throat and get that sick tech bro poison out of your system. Phones were – still are – a magic portal into a psychedelic fun house of possibility. They’re also tracking and surveilling you even as you sleep while a Silicon Valley edgelord plots ways to tear up the federal government.

    10 Listen to women of colour. Everything bad that happened on the internet happened to them first. The history of technology is that it is only when it affects white men that it’s considered a problem. Look at how technology is already being used to profile and target immigrants. Know that you’re next.

    Act as if you are now living in East Germany and Meta/Facebook/Instagram/ WhatsApp is the Stasi. It is

    11 Think of your personal data as nude selfies. A veteran technology journalist told me this in 2017 and it’s never left me. My experience of “discovery” – handing over 40,000 emails, messages, documents to the legal team of the Brexit donor I’d investigated – left me paralysed and terrified. Think what a hostile legal team would make of your message history. This can and will happen.

    12 Don’t buy the bullshit. A Securities and Exchange judgment found Facebook had lied to two journalists – one of them was me – and Facebook agreed to pay a $100m penalty. If you are a journalist, refuse off the record briefings. Don’t chat on the phone; email. Refuse access interviews. Bullshit exclusives from Goebbels 2.0 will be a stain on your publication for ever.

    13 Even dickheads love their dogs. Find a way to connect to those you disagree with. “The obvious mistakes of those who find themselves in opposition are to break off relations with those who disagree with you,” texts Vera Krichevskaya, the co-founder of TV Rain, Russia’s last independent TV station. “You cannot allow anger and narrow your circle.”

    14 Pay in cash. Ask yourself what an international drug trafficker would do, and do that. They’re not going to the dead drop by Uber or putting 20kg of crack cocaine on a credit card. In the broligarchy, every data point is a weapon. Download Signal, the encrypted messaging app. Turn on disappearing messages.
    skip past newsletter promotion

    15 Remember. Writer Rebecca Solnit, an essential US liberal voice, emails: “If they try to normalize, let us try to denormalize. Let us hold on to facts, truths, values, norms, arrangements that are going to be under siege. Let us not forget what happened and why.”

    16 Find allies in unlikely places. One of my most surprising sources of support during my trial(s) was hard-right Brexiter David Davis. Find threads of connection and work from there.

    17 There is such a thing as truth. There are facts and we can know them. From Tamsin Shaw, professor in philosophy at New York University: “‘Can the sceptic resist the tyrant?’ is one of the oldest questions in political philosophy. We can’t even fully recognise what tyranny is if we let the ruling powers get away with lying to us all.”

    18 Plan. Silicon Valley doesn’t think in four-year election cycles. Elon Musk isn’t worrying about the midterms. He’s thinking about flying a SpaceX rocket to Mars and raping and pillaging its rare earth minerals before anyone else can get there. We need a 30-year road map out of this.

    19 Take the piss. Humour is a weapon. Any man who feels the need to build a rocket is not overconfident about his masculinity. Work with that.

    20 They are not gods. Tech billionaires are over-entitled nerds with the extraordinary historical luck of being born at the exact right moment in history. Treat them accordingly.

    Carole Cadwalladr is a reporter and feature writer for the Observer

  • Un appel à ceux qui rendent possible le génocide, (alias la #communauté_internationale) pour stopper le génocide.

    We, Israelis, are calling for global pressure on Israel to force an immediate ceasefire | Open letter | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/24/israel-immediate-ceasefire-open-letter

    More than 2,000 Israelis have signed this letter, published in 11 languages, asking the international community to use ‘every possible sanction’ to ‘save us from ourselves’

  • The US won’t run for another term on UN human rights council. Israel is likely why | Kenneth Roth | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/11/us-un-human-rights-israel

    Something unusual happened this week at the UN: the US government decided not to run for a second term on the human rights council. Taking a year off is mandatory after a country serves two three-year terms, but the Biden administration chose to bow out after a single term. That is extremely unusual. What happened?

    Various rationales are circulating, but one, in my view, looms large: Israel. Or more to the point, Joe Biden’s refusal to suspend or condition the massive US arms sales and military aid to Israel as its military bombs and starves the Palestinian civilians of Gaza.

    The election for the 47-member human rights council in Geneva is conducted by the 193-member UN general assembly in New York. The balloting would have provided a rare opportunity for the world’s governments to vote on US complicity in Israeli war crimes. The US could have lost. The Biden administration seems to have calculated that it was better to withdraw voluntarily than to face the prospect of such a shameful repudiation.

    (...)
    This year, something seems to have gone wrong with this cozy if detrimental practice. In the election this week, the western group had three seats to fill. Iceland, Spain and Switzerland had all put their hats in the ring, and the United States was expected to seek renewal of its term that was coming to an end. Three years ago, when a similar possibility emerged of four western candidates for three positions, Washington persuaded Italy to withdraw, allowing it to run unopposed.

    But this year, by all appearances, none of the other three Western candidates were eager to abandon their quest. That could have reflected the possibility that Donald Trump would win the US presidential election next month. In 2018, he notoriously relinquished the US seat on the council to protest its criticism of Israel. Iceland, Spain and Switzerland must have wondered: why defer to the US candidacy if Trump may soon nullify?

    (...) It is rare that the UN general assembly has the chance to vote on the US government’s conduct. A competitive vote for the UN human rights council would have provided such an opportunity. Given widespread outrage at Israeli war crimes in Gaza – and at Biden’s refusal to use the enormous leverage of US arms sales and military aid to stop it – that vote could easily have resulted in an overwhelming repudiation of the Biden administration. Rather than face the possibility of a humiliating reprimand, the US government withdrew its candidacy.

    These events show again how devastating Biden’s support for Israel has been for the cause of human rights. By virtue of its diplomatic and economic power, the US government can be an important force for human rights. Other than on Israel, its presence on the council has generally helped the defense of human rights.

    But US credibility, already compromised by Washington’s close alliances with the repressive likes of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has been profoundly undermined by Biden’s aiding and abetting of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. With Biden seemingly constitutionally unable to change, the defense of human rights is taking a hit.

    That doesn’t mean an end to that defense. The human rights council functioned well despite Trump’s withdrawal. Without the baggage of Washington’s ideological animosity, Latin American democracies led a successful effort to condemn Venezuela. Tiny Iceland secured condemnation of the mass summary executions spawned by the “drug war” of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, whom Trump had embraced.

    But it is a sad state of affairs when, rather than join the frontline defense of human rights at a time of severe threat – in Russia, Ukraine, China, Sudan, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere – the Biden administration has gone sulking from Geneva back to Washington. It says it won’t run again for the council until 2028.

    Kenneth Roth was executive director of Human Rights Watch from 1993 to 2022. He is now a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs