View previous stories
	Why history lessons are so threatening to those with power by OHCHR, Harvard University, NYT, agencies USA   June 2025   Political interference in US education undermines academic freedom and equitable access to education: UN expert. (OHCHR)   The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Farida Shaheed, has expressed deep concern over escalating political interference across the US education system, warning that recent developments, including the contested decision to bar Harvard University from enrolling international students, are part of a wider trend threatening academic freedom, student rights and democratic integrity.   “While the Harvard case has drawn global attention, it is emblematic of a much broader pattern of coercive assault on academic freedom and institutional autonomy: from book and subject bans in schools to discriminatory censorship laws and punitive measures against universities, their students and faculty,” Shaheed said.   She warned against the authoritarian encroachment on universities, where state power is increasingly used to penalise dissent, shape curricula and restrict open inquiry.   In her country visit report presented to the UN Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur documented discriminatory policies targeting curricula, teaching and student activism. “As observed during my visit and in the year that followed, political interference has increasingly restricted access to diverse perspectives and critical inquiry,” she said.   “Many interlocutors described a pervasive ‘chilling effect’ on educators and institutions. At the same time, student protests are met with criminalisation, deportations, surveillance and disproportionate disciplinary actions.”   Shaheed called on the US to uphold academic freedom as a cornerstone of scientific progress and democracy. “This includes respecting institutional autonomy, resisting censorship and ensuring pluralism in educational content,” she said. “As a party to the ICCPR, the United States must guarantee that universities, whether public or private, operating on its territory and subordinate to its legislation, protect, and not punish, peaceful protest.”   She expressed strong support for more than 200 universities resisting what has been described as a coordinated pressure campaign involving threats to withdraw federal funding or tax privileges, weaponisation of accreditation, politically motivated investigations and demands to censor content, restrict hiring or discipline students.   “I commend those institutions that are standing firm in defence of the core values of education. Upholding academic freedom and freedom of expression is not only lawful, it is necessary to preserve the democratic role of education.”   Shaheed urged authorities at all levels to:   Recognise education as a fundamental human right; Treat education as a public good and address inequities in funding; End censorship and politicisation of content across all levels of education; Prioritise mental health and restorative approaches over punitive discipline; Protect tenure and institutional governance from external interference.   “Without structural reforms, these trends will continue to erode equitable access to education and diminish its role in sustaining democratic society,” she warned, adding that the Principles for implementing the right to academic freedom can provide useful guidance in creating policies aimed at shielding academic activities from political and commercial interests.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/political-interference-us-education-undermines-academic-freedom-and http://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2025/the-promise-of-american-higher-education/ http://www.harvard.edu/president/category/news/ http://app.frame.io/presentations/58d800e6-d749-4066-beab-605912c037aa http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/04/harvard-wont-comply-with-demands-from-trump-administration/ http://www.hhrjournal.org/2025/05/07/free-speech-the-right-to-health-and-genocide/ http://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/30111:global-education-union-movement-rallies-in-solidarity-with-educators-in-the-united-states-as-they-resist-relentless-attacks-from-the-trump-administration http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/01/trump-harvard-authoritarianism-democracy http://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/may/26/former-harvard-president-drew-gilpin-faust-threats-to-democracy   http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/23/us/harvard-trump-lawsuit.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/26/trumps-revenge-spree-on-harvard-echoes-well-beyond-education http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/21/us-university-presidents-trump-administration http://www.aaup.org/news/harvard-aaup-and-national-aaup-sue-trump-administration-block-unlawful-funding-cuts http://sites.google.com/view/yalefacultyletter2025/home http://www.aaup.org/ http://president.mit.edu/writing-speeches/further-responses-federal-actions http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/our-work/carr-commentary/indigenous-rights-part-alleged-woke-agenda-historical http://knightcolumbia.org/content/knight-institute-condemns-trump-administrations-effort-to-subjugate-universities-to-official-power   Feb. 2025   Why history lessons are so threatening to those with power, by Chana Teeger. (Columbia University Press)   If students are taught that the racism of the past is done and dusted, then it follows that there is nothing left to do – no policies left to enact. But if the playing field today is not equal – if the past still affects the present – then ignoring these legacies allows inequities to continue unchecked, writes Chana Teeger.   "History education is on the agenda internationally. Across the United States, interest groups are working to outlaw discussions of how racism underpins the country’s history by banning books and regulating school curricula. In India, the Hindu nationalist government has been accused of rewriting history as it deletes the Mughal past from textbooks. And in the United Kingdom, teachers’ unions protest that national guidelines on “political impartiality” are silencing conversations about racism and the British Empire in schools.   But erasure and denial of the past are not the only ways to suppress historical claims and reproduce privilege. In fact, such overt strategies are often easy to identify and critique. In contrast, my research in two racially diverse South African schools shows how the past can be recalled while its legacies are ignored.   Apartheid is very much on the curriculum in South Africa. Across the country, grade 9 students (aged 14-15) confront their country’s history of legalised racism in a mandatory high school module. But, as I sat in on hundreds of hours of classes and spoke with 170 students and teachers, I learned that the past was taught in ways that distanced it from young people’s everyday lives.   Much has changed since the days of apartheid. Yet, even as a democracy, South Africa is one of the most unequal countries in the world. And that inequality remains highly racialised – so much so that whites’ average earnings are more than three times those of black Africans.   But learning about apartheid in school did not help students make connections between the racist past and present. Instead, history lessons taught them that the past is over and that the present is all about equality of opportunity.   Why did this historical distancing form such a core part of the lessons? My research shows that this had to do with teachers’ hopes of avoiding conflict and difficult feelings – like guilt and anger – in their classrooms. As one teacher explained, “you want to use the wrongs of the past to try unite the kids.”   By teaching students that the past was done and dusted, teachers aimed to create a sense of unity where students could contrast then (the apartheid past) to now (their multiracial classrooms). They wanted to steer clear of racial boundaries that students might draw between us and them.   Why does this matter? Well, if teachers’ messages are correct, if racism has indeed been dealt with – if it is over – then there is nothing left to do, no policies left to enact. But if the playing field is not equal – if the past still affects the present – then ignoring these legacies means that inequities can continue unchecked. In other words, these history lessons taught students lessons that undermine political action aimed at undoing the legacies of the past.   By teaching students that racism is in the past, these lessons also taught black students not to talk about the racism they experience in the present.   A teacher told me how she drove home this message when a student accused her of being racist. Connecting the student’s claims about current racism to the apartheid past, the teacher recalled bluntly telling the student: “You have no right to claim what happened because you didn’t go through it. It’s not your hurt that you’re carrying.”   As monuments to slaveholders topple across the globe, while lawmakers work to regulate the content of history curricula, we are reminded that the past is not really history. Instead, the past makes demands on the present and can be used to mobilise for justice.   This is why so much is at stake in teaching about histories of oppression. In the short run, teachers can create an illusion of racial harmony, as students learn not to talk about racism in the present. But, in the long run, these lessons reproduce unequal power relations and block efforts at real equality.   Righting historical wrongs means looking squarely at past injustices – including how these continue into the present. Erasure and denial will not make inequality disappear.   Indeed, they will allow it to continue without challenge. For the past to truly become history, we must first recognise all the ways that it is still present".   * Chana Teeger is associate professor in the department of Methodology at the London School of Economics and the author of Distancing the Past: Racism as History in South African Schools.   Each February, the United States celebrates Black History Month and honors the innumerable achievements, contributions, and the history of African Americans.   Distorting the past is a powerful political tool for creating an alternative social reality, says Hajar Yazdiha - Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Southern California.   "This year we welcome Black History Month amid the onslaught of “shock and awe” executive orders including rolling back long-established civil rights protections, banning DEI initiatives, and challenging birthright citizenship. In this landscape, it is not entirely clear if Black History Month itself is still allowed. (It is, though the administration has ordered it be “downplayed”).   The dawn of this political era has been likened to the rise of European fascism a century ago. Yet, it is Black history itself that shows us that our answers to how we got here and why this is happening are rooted right here, in the histories of the United States.   More critically, our answers lie in understanding how and why political elites have ensured we remain willfully ignorant to these histories. As Dr. King once warned, "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."   In my book The Struggle for the People’s King, I document the right wing’s long game of sanitizing, distorting, and misusing memories of Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement to render White Americans the “true” victims of the Civil Rights era.   The danger of distorting the past is not only that it is untrue. As we see, playing out in real time today across the globe, distorting the past is a powerful political tool for creating an alternative social reality that justifies everything from re-segregation to genocide.   Distorting the past ensures we do not learn the histories of everyday people of all stripes, coming together, organizing, struggling, and resisting. Instead, we remain helpless and scared, atomized and pitted against one another.   More than ever, Black history is vital not only for understanding the past that led us here. Black history is vital because it affords us the vision and will for a collective path forward".   Our nation’s inability to reconcile with the legacies of slavery and colonialism, by Willie Mack - Assistant Professor in the Black Studies Department at the University of Missouri-Columbia   "Efforts by conservative and racist politicians and activists to ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT), diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in schools, government offices, and businesses, and books that discuss race and sexuality, have proliferated in states like Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas, just to name a few.   Conservative lawmakers and activists claim that the banning of CRT, DEI, and books that deal with race and sexuality is crucial because they are too “woke.” However, what these conservative and racist activists are doing is endeavoring to erase the long history of racism and white supremacy in this country, a symptom of our nation’s inability to reconcile with the legacies of slavery and colonialism".   In 1926, amongst a period of virulent racial violence against Black people, Black historian Carter G. Woodson established Negro History Week in the second week of February. Carter chose February to coincide with Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass’s birthdays. However, Carter established the holiday as a year-round celebration, not simply one month. It was not until 1986, amongst the punitive War on Drugs and rise of mass incarceration that disproportionally targeted Black communities, that U.S. Congress designated February as National Black History Month.   Regardless, Black History Month was established as a celebration of resistance against white supremacy and the erasure of Black history. It is now more important than ever that we carry on Woodson’s life goal of celebrating and preserving Black history year-round, year after year".   Coming to terms with the origins of U.S. history, by Michael McEachrane - Rapporteur of the UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent and a Racial Justice Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.   "In this age of "Make America Great Again," "America First," "White Pride over Civil Rights," and "Profit for the Few over Welfare for the Many and our Planet," Black History Month may be more important than ever. At its core, it is about social equality and justice.   It is about fairly including people in the grand narrative of U.S. history who may otherwise be sidelined. It is about coming to terms with the origins of U.S. history in colonialism, genocide, enslavement and racism. And it is about struggles for the equal dignity, freedom, rights, opportunities, and voice of all Americans.   At its very best, Black History Month is also about global history. The transnational and fleeting nature, rich diversity and ingenuity of human culture, including the pioneering civilization of Ancient Egypt and its roots in Black Africa. The global impact of European colonialism, enslavement and racism, including on the unequal formation of the global economy. The similar situations and struggles of Africans and people of African descent across the world.   And even the possibilities of a social, economic, and environmentally sustainable development that leaves no one behind, to speak the language of Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development".   As Trump Attacks Diversity, a Racist undercurrent Surfaces, by Erica L. Green - White House correspondent for the New York Times.   As Navy divers searched the Potomac River for bodies from the worst air crash in the United States in 20 years, President Trump zeroed in on what he saw as the cause: hiring programs that promote diversity.   The meaning behind his words was clear, that diversity equals incompetence. And for many historians, civil rights leaders, scholars and citizens, it was an unmistakable message of racism in plain sight at the highest levels of American government.   “His attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion aren’t about a particular program or some acronym — they’re just a sanitized substitute for the racist comments that can no longer be spoken openly,” Margaret Huang, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s president and chief executive, said during a call with civil rights leaders after Mr. Trump’s remarks.   “But the message is the same, that women, ​Black and brown communities are inherently less capable, and if they hold positions of power or authority in government or business, it must be because the standards were lowered.​”   In the weeks since he took office, Mr. Trump has made a point of purging the federal government of D.E.I. initiatives in order to usher in what he called a “colorblind and merit-based” society. He even said his executive order eliminating the programs was “the most important federal civil rights measure in decades.”   In his actions, Mr. Trump has aligned himself with those who are brandishing the term D.E.I. as a catchall for discrimination against white people, and using it as a pejorative to attack nonwhite and female leaders as unqualified for their positions.   After some of Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress disparagingly referred to Vice President Kamala Harris as a “D.E.I. hire” during the 2024 campaign, Mr. Trump refused to disavow the remarks.   The issue plays into deep tensions among Americans about the role of race in society and helped supercharge Mr. Trump’s political comeback. Many voters, conservative and not, hoped to see a correction to what they saw as progressive politics gone too far. D.E.I., in effect, became an all-purpose target for society’s ills.   “It’s the latest term that serves as a proxy for race, and it’s used as a politically expedient slur, as a way to stoke white grievances and to give a convenient scapegoat to whatever ails our nation,” said Timothy Welbeck, the director of Temple University’s Center for Anti-Racism.   A Pew Research Center survey published in November found that the percentage of American workers who viewed D.E.I. programs negatively was on the rise, though a majority of workers still believed that it was a good thing for their employers to focus on.   A White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, said Democrats’ focus on D.E.I. undermined “decades of progress toward true equality.”   “The Trump administration rejects this backward thinking and will pursue an agenda that lifts everyone up with the chance to achieve the American dream,” he said in a statement.   In Mr. Trump’s remarks last week on the plane crash, he cited no evidence that diversity programs had anything to do with the fatal accident. When asked how he could say that diversity hiring was to blame, he said, “I have common sense.”   In a misleading claim, Mr. Trump insinuated that the administration of President Barack Obama — the first Black president — had stocked the Federal Aviation Administration with people who could not do their jobs.   “They actually came out with a directive: ‘too white,’” Mr. Trump said. His administration will be different, he went on. “We want the people that are competent.”   (Asked for details on the “too white” claim, the White House cited a lawsuit filed in 2015 by a conservative legal organization accusing the Obama administration of hiring practices that were “engineered to favor racial minorities.” That lawsuit is pending in court.)   The concept behind the federal government’s diversity programs is not new; it developed as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The goal is to remove discriminatory barriers for women, minority groups and people with disabilities from jobs. The earliest beneficiaries were white women, white people in rural areas and disabled veterans, Mr. Welbeck said.   The idea was that qualified people were being overlooked.   “It wasn’t discriminatory, because it was always about offering qualified people an opportunity to have a seat at the table,” Mr. Welbeck said. “They weren’t supplanting people, it was more so an opportunity for access.”   Critics of D.E.I. say an emphasis on diversity means that hiring standards are compromised and that the focus on race and gender is a distraction from more urgent goals and the overall mission. “When you don’t focus on safety and you focus on social justice or the environment, bad things happen,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on CNN on Sunday, speaking about the Washington plane crash. The Trump administration, Mr. Duffy said, wants “the best and the brightest.”   But in the F.A.A. and elsewhere, officials say, the programs follow the same aptitude, medical and security standards for all hires.   Melik Abdul, a Republican strategist who was a part of the group Black Americans for Trump during the 2024 campaign, said the president’s stated commitment to merit was contradicted by some of his actions. He noted that Mr. Trump’s cabinet, which is predominantly white and male, is packed with loyalists.   “If it was all about merit, then we wouldn’t have Pete Hegseth,” said Mr. Abdul, referring to Mr. Trump’s defense secretary. Mr. Hegseth, a veteran and former Fox News host, took over the job of overseeing the Defense Department and its three million employees with little management experience beyond running veterans groups that he was accused of mismanaging.   “You can’t argue merit and say that is our most merit-based hire,” said Mr. Abdul, who has not broken with the president over the D.E.I. issue but says he is frustrated by Mr. Trump’s “obsession” with it.   For many, Mr. Trump’s attacks on D.E.I. point to his long history of inflaming racial tensions using dog whistles — from a campaign dating back to the 1980s against five Black men who were wrongfully convicted and ultimately exonerated of assaulting and raping a white woman, to his attempt to paint the first Black president as a noncitizen.   But now, they say, the dog whistle is a bullhorn. The attacks on D.E.I. are part of a broad backlash against policies that Republicans denounce as left-wing politics run amok. One of Mr. Trump’s most aired ads about Ms. Harris during the presidential race ended with a tagline that took direct aim at transgender people: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”   Conservatives seized on what they describe as “woke” policies taking over American culture, particularly after the 2020 murder of George Floyd, 46-year-old Black man, by a Minneapolis police officer. The killing spurred schools, institutions and companies to adopt policies and training that sought to acknowledge and reverse systemic inequities.   In the process, they alienated some people. “The oppressiveness of D.E.I. in the common culture, workplaces and in schools started to sink in,” said Dan Lennington, deputy counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which has sought to wipe out diversity programs. “People being told they have white privilege and they ought to read a book about it is not the way to make friends and have influence.”   The uproar over D.E.I. is similar to the one over critical race theory a few years ago, in which conservative activists alleged that schools were indoctrinating students to become radical race warriors, and shaming students by teaching them about the history of slavery.   Critical race theory, a graduate-level concept that explores systemic racism in America, was rarely taught in K-12 schools. But some of its conceptual underpinnings, including that racism is embedded in societal systems like courts and schools, were a part of discussions on race more broadly.   The architect of the movement to turn critical race theory into a Republican rallying cry, Christopher F. Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, laid out a blueprint for Mr. Trump in December to eliminate “left-wing racialism” from the federal government.   In a post he called the “Counterrevolution Blueprint,” he wrote: “Trump can end these programs under his executive authority and replace D.E.I. with a policy of strict colorblind equality. This action would deliver an immediate shock to the bureaucracy.”   In an emailed response to an inquiry from The New York Times last week, Mr. Rufo said that he had been in touch with members of the Trump policy team since the summer of 2020, when the fight against critical race theory began. He said Mr. Trump’s D.E.I. fight had been years in the making by several conservative groups whose staff members have now joined the administration. He called the administration’s execution of their plans “phenomenal.”   “For an activist, there is no greater thrill than seeing a blueprint turn into reality,” he wrote. “It’s a new day in America.”   Civil rights groups say that it may be a new day, but that the themes have clear echoes, including the years after Reconstruction, which were marked by a violent backlash against Black people, and the tenure of President Woodrow Wilson, who resegregated the federal work force.   Samuel Spital, the associate director-counsel of the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund, said Mr. Trump’s dismantling of D.E.I. was an attempt to “remake our society.” It is an effort, he said, to “collectively gaslight the American people” about the real victims of discrimination in the United States.   Jan. 2025   Joint Center Responds to Removal of EEOC Commissioners   In response to President Donald Trump’s decision to fire two commissioners of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies issues the following statement.   “This unprecedented action to dismiss EEOC Commissioners Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels directly threatens workplace civil rights protections and the EEOC’s independence as a bipartisan agency,” said Joint Center President Dedrick Asante-Muhammad.   “The EEOC was established under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect workers from discrimination based on race, gender, disability, religion, age, and other characteristics.   Bringing to an end the racial inequalities and discrimination still found in the workplace is not discriminatory nor unlawful, it is the right of every individual to have the ability to be protected within their workplace and to have the ability to provide for themselves or their families.”   Joint Center Workforce Policy Director Dr. Kayla Elliott said, “The EEOC is an independent, bipartisan agency that exists to protect employees, not serve the political agenda of any administration. We are deeply concerned that the EEOC’s new priority will be to uproot employers with perfectly legal employment practices rather than upholding protections against discrimination.”   * In the United States, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination.   DEI policy emerged from Affirmative action in the United States. The legal term "affirmative action" was first used in "Executive Order No. 10925", signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated fairly during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".   In September 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.   An estimated 48.3 million people in the U.S. identified as Black in 2023 according to the Pew Center, in the US the Hispanic population reached 62.1 million in 2020. The US Female Population aged 15-64 was reported at 106 million in 2017. 1 in 4—over 70 million—adults in the United States reported having a disability in 2022. DEI policies have sought to bring greater equality and justice to what is in fact the majority of the U.S. population.   http://cupblog.org/2024/07/24/why-history-lessons-are-so-threatening-to-those-with-power-chana-teeger/ http://www.splcenter.org/presscenter/trump-rolls-back-six-decades-workplace-discrimination-protections/ http://stateofblackamerica.org/ http://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/magazine/trump-civil-rights-law-discrimination.html http://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/03/us/politics/trump-diversity-racism.html http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/02/trump-attacks-dei/681772/ http://humanrightsfirst.org/library/mlk-legacy-trumps-hatred/ http://blog.ucsusa.org/precious-tshabalala/celebrating-black-history-while-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-are-under-attack/ http://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/06/civil-rights-watchdog-under-assault-trump-administration http://www.hrw.org/news/2025/04/10/trump-administrations-assaults-black-history http://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-epa-zeldin-environmental-rollback-rcna196056 http://otherwords.org/black-history-is-every-day-with-or-without-the-white-house/ http://otherwords.org/why-politicians-keep-blaming-dei-for-disasters-even-when-its-laughably-untrue/ http://www.idea.int/theme/gender-and-inclusion   http://www.philanthropy.com/blogs/letters-to-the-editor/anonymity-isnt-possible http://www.philanthropy.com/article/these-346-foundations-are-candidates-for-a-trump-dei-investigation http://www.councilofnonprofits.org/pressreleases/statement-diane-yentel-president-ceo-national-council-nonprofits-denouncing-house-gop http://www.environmentalprotectionnetwork.org/20250421_ngo-statement-advisory/ http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01192-y http://www.unsdsn.org/news/why-2025-must-be-the-year-of-leaving-no-one-behind/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/usa-businesses-must-stand-firm-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-say-experts   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/08/stockholm-rejects-us-letter-urging-city-to-reverse-diversity-initiatives http://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/democracy-and-society/trumps-newspeak-threatens-us-all-8343/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/31/politicians-criticise-us-efforts-to-make-eu-firms-reverse-diversity-initiatives http://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250329-trump-diversity-equity-inclusion-dei-france-companies-executive-order-usa-europe-ban http://genevasolutions.news/global-news/surreal-us-questionnaire-stuns-international-geneva http://www.passblue.com/2025/03/25/the-trump-officials-who-sent-loyalty-questions-to-un-geneva-agencies/ http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2025/05/trump-white-south-africans-afrikaners-cyril-ramaphosa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/23/trump-ramaphosa-south-africa-meeting   http://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/trumps-attack-on-the-department-of-education-explained http://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/medicaid-is-a-lifeline-for-people-with-disabilities-congress-must-act-to-save-it http://www.aclu.org/podcast/know-your-disability-rights-with-zoe-brennan-krohn-and-nicole-jorwic http://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-department-of-education-cuts-could-hurt-resources-for-students-with-disabilities http://childrensdefense.org/rev-dr-starsky-wilson-on-dept-of-education-executive-order-education-is-still-the-path-to-freedom-and-fairness/ http://childrensdefense.org/blog/100-days-and-counting/ http://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/federal-cuts-threaten-babies-and-preschoolers-with-disabilities-from-all-angles http://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administrations-war-on-disability/ http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2025/03/18/ed-department-cuts-may-leave-students-with-disabilities-little-to-no-recourse/31362/
	Scientists comment on the Unites States withdrawing from the Paris Agreement by Union of Concerned Scientists, agencies USA   Scientists comment on the Unites States withdrawing from the Paris Agreement:   Dr Friederike Otto, Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London:   “The Paris Agreement is a human rights agreement.. Climate change is already making life more difficult for people in America, and around the world. With every fraction of a degree of warming, extreme weather events will intensify and impact basic human rights, like the right to food, housing, work, and medical care.   “The basic laws of physics – that a hotter climate causes more dangerous weather – will continue, independent of Donald Trump’s agenda.   “Moving away from fossil fuels and limiting warming to the Paris Agreement will make the world safer, healthier, and more equal. For many of us, these are goals worth fighting for, so it is important, more than ever to tell a different narrative to Trump’s, no matter what he and his government do and say.”   Prof Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at UCL:   “Donald Trump has won a second term as US President and this will have a profound impact on the domestic and international climate change agenda. Trump declared during his election campaign that he does not believe in climate change. Pulling out one of the world superpowers from COP negotiations to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions is a big deal – as it allows other countries to slow their own decarbonisation and blame the US instead of their own lack of ambition.. The transition from fossil fuels is too slow and the UN have suggested that with current trends we are looking at at least a extremely dangerous 3.1˚C warming by the end of the century.   Julio Diaz and Cristina Linares, scientific coordinators of the Observatory on Health and Climate Change, said:   “The United States is currently the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases (11%), after China (30%), but has contributed the most to global warming. Its exit from the Paris Agreement will have an impact on the US’s emissions reduction targets, but the advance of renewable energies is unstoppable, although this will be a major setback. It may also serve as a negative example for other countries (China) to be more lax in limiting their emissions.   On the other hand, the Paris Agreement also talks about financing for the countries most affected by the climate crisis, so the exit may also affect the agreements reached at COP29. In addition, Trump has also signed the withdrawal from the WHO, so it is assumed that the impact of climate change on health is something that does not interest this new administration in the slightest.   A decision that comes in the wake of 2024 being the warmest year globally, the recent fires in California, the floods in Valencia and a particularly harsh winter in the USA. All of this with clear implications for morbidity and mortality in both the short and long term. A decision that is incomprehensible from a scientific point of view and discouraging for all of us who work in this field”.   Anna Cabre, Climate physicist, research consultant at the University of Pennsylvania, said:   “This is bad news because without cooperation and funding from all countries it is difficult to make progress. In this case we are talking about one of the countries that emits the most per capita and has emitted the most throughout history, i.e. the one that should take more responsibility, not less. Moreover, it is a country that is already suffering the effects of climate change, as evidenced by the recent fires in Los Angeles. Even economic experts say that the transition to a low-carbon world is a profitable business opportunity.   “For all these reasons, the decision taken is irresponsible. It seems to be acting on the belief that it is not their turn to pay for anything and every man for himself. The only positive thing that could come out of this is that alliances are formed between other, stronger countries without US involvement, and that states, cities and businesses continue to move forward, keeping the process moving forward regardless”.   Ani Dasgupta, President, World Resources Institute:   “The Paris Agreement remains as essential as ever. UN climate negotiations are the only platform where every nation has a voice on one of the most pressing challenges of our time. Whether it’s to tackle the catastrophic climate impacts they face or tap into rapidly growing green technologies, countries recognize the critical value of this international process.   Every year, far too many US communities are bombarded with deadly wildfires, floods and hurricanes that know no borders.. Walking away from the Paris Agreement won’t protect Americans from climate impacts. We are in a generational struggle to move the world to a safer place. Today’s abdication of responsibility by President Trump will not derail the world from this fight".   Ottmar Edenhofer, Climate Economist and Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:   "Trump’s return to the White House raises serious concerns about the future of international climate cooperation. His intention to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement would have far reaching implications. It could disrupt the COP process, weaken the U.S.’s influence in UN climate negotiations, limit domestic climate action, and reduce the pressure on other major emitters, such as China, to adopt more ambitious climate targets. Trump’s plans to expand oil and gas extraction would deepen climate risks.   Johan Rockstrom, Earth System Scientist and Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:   "With Trump’s return to the White House, we face renewed uncertainty and significant challenges in addressing the global climate crisis. His previous term saw a dangerous pause in efforts to mitigate climate change; another delay is time we cannot afford to lose.   Science provides the solutions we need to secure a more competitive, resilient, and prosperous future. While the direction of U.S. climate leadership may change, it is essential to focus on phasing out fossil fuels, investing in sustainable food systems, protecting nature, and using resources efficiently. These actions are not sacrifices, but opportunities to thrive within the Planetary Boundaries, ensuring stability, health, and prosperity for generations to come."   U.S. Climate Alliance: “We will continue America’s work to achieve the Goals of the Paris Agreement”.   As the Trump administration announced it will withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, the co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance – New York Governor Kathy Hochul and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham – delivered a letter to UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell making it clear to the global community that climate action will continue in the U.S."   "We write as co-chairs of the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of two dozen governors representing nearly 60 percent of the U.S. economy and 55 percent of the U.S. population, to make it clear to you, and the rest of the world, that we will continue America’s work to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and slash climate pollution. We will not turn our back on America’s commitments. For our health and our future, we will press forward.”   "It’s critical for the international community to know that climate action will continue in the U.S. The U.S. Climate Alliance will bring this message to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Brazil (COP30) later this year – just as we have at every COP since our coalition’s founding – as we work to implement our climate goals".   President Trump ignores Science, makes decision to Withdraw US from Paris Agreement - Union of Concerned Scientists   President Trump announced today that he would seek to remove the United States from the Paris Agreement—adopted by nearly 200 countries in 2015 with the aim to limit global climate change. United States withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement would take effect a year after submitting the required letter of intent and mark the second time the country has done so.   Pres. Trump’s announcement comes as massive wildfires continue to rage in California and just weeks after U.S. and global scientific agencies confirmed the planet experienced its hottest year on record in 2024. Last year, the United States also endured at least 27 extreme weather and climate-related disasters that each reported damages of $1 billion or more, many of which were worsened by climate change.   Statement by Dr. Rachel Cleetus, the policy director and lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS:   “Withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement is a travesty. Such a move is in clear defiance of scientific realities and shows an administration cruelly indifferent to the harsh climate change impacts that people in the United States and around the world are experiencing. Pulling out of the Paris Agreement is an abdication of responsibility and undermines the very global action that people at home and abroad desperately need.   “Regardless of politics, the scientific imperative to address the climate crisis remains clear and necessitates urgent actions from U.S. and global policymakers. Last year was the first time global average temperatures exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels for an entire year. Unless world leaders act quickly, the planet is on track for a 3.1 degrees Celsius increase, which would be catastrophic.   As the largest historical emitter of heat-trapping emissions, the United States has a responsibility to do its fair share to stave off the increasingly dire consequences of the climate crisis.   “Instead of seizing the opportunity to expand the economic and public health benefits of clean energy for people across the nation, while working together with the global community to solve this shared challenge, Pres. Trump is choosing to begin his term pandering to the fossil fuel industry and its allies.   His decision is an ominous harbinger of what people in the United States should expect from him and his anti-science cabinet hellbent on boosting fossil fuel industry profits at the expense of people and the planet.   Scientific experts say fossil fuel emissions must be cut quickly and deeply to avoid the worst outcomes including more extreme weather, sea level rise, biodiversity loss, food and water insecurity and worsening health impacts.   Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate official who now lectures at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy, speaking at the time of the Biden targets being announced in December last year, said: “Trump is risking the climate stability and safety of the planet as part of a culture war political strategy, heedless of billions who will suffer.”   http://wmo.int/media/news/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-year-record-about-155degc-above-pre-industrial-level http://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/president-trump-ignores-science-makes-disgraceful-decision-withdraw-us-paris-agreement http://blog.ucs.org/kathy-mulvey/why-congress-must-block-a-liability-waiver-for-the-fossil-fuel-industry/ http://blog.ucs.org/series/trump-administration/ http://www.hrw.org/news/2025/07/30/us-moves-to-kill-ability-to-regulate-greenhouse-gases http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/operation-damage-control-trumps-executive-orders-and-the-climate/ http://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/21/climate/trump-climate-change-executive-orders.html http://www.reuters.com/world/trumps-paris-climate-exit-will-hit-harder-than-2017-2025-01-21 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/pik-statement-on-donald-trumps-inauguration-serious-concerns-about-the-future-of-international-climate-cooperation http://www.dw.com/en/what-does-trumps-second-term-mean-for-the-climate/a-70932970 http://usclimatealliance.org/press-releases/alliance-paris-withdrawal http://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2025/01/sierra-club-reaction-trump-s-absurd-energy-emergency   http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-news-that-the-united-states-has-withdrawn-from-the-paris-agreement-again http://www.wri.org/statement-paris-agreement-withdrawal-erodes-americas-standing-world http://ips-dc.org/release-climate-justice-groups-paris-agreement-withdrawal-is-deeply-misguided http://350.org/press-release/keeping-optimism-alive-centering-the-climate-agenda-under-president-trump/ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/31/scientists-letter-trump-administration http://insideclimatenews.org/news/31012025/trump-administration-war-on-science http://insideclimatenews.org/news/07032025/stand-up-for-science-rallies-against-trump-anti-science-agenda/ http://zenodo.org/records/15696097 http://council.science/blog/science-diplomacy-and-the-global-state-of-affairs http://www.nature.com/collections/jcjhabjhgi http://www.lemonde.fr/en/science/article/2025/03/04/let-s-defend-science-against-anti-knowledge-efforts_6738768_10.html http://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2025/02/18/trump-attacks-climate-science-and-spreads-fear-among-scientists_6738302_114.html http://www.dw.com/en/us-science-funding-freeze-a-threat-to-academic-freedom/a-71501071   http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/10/trumps-usaid-cuts-will-have-huge-impact-on-global-climate-finance-data-shows http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/07/us-exits-fund-that-compensates-poorer-countries-for-global-heating http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/04/trump-climate-change-federal-websites http://www.propublica.org/article/trump-epa-greenhouse-gas-reporting-climate-crisis http://www.propublica.org/article/epa-workers-resign-trump http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01146-4 http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00243-8 http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00197-x   July 2025   Leading Medical Professional Societies sue U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for Unlawful, Unilateral Vaccine Changes.   Today, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American College of Physicians (ACP), American Public Health Association (APHA), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Massachusetts Public Health Alliance (MPHA), Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), and a pregnant physician, filed suit in ​American Academy of Pediatrics v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to defend vaccine policy, and to put an end to the Secretary’s assault on science, public health and evidence-based medicine.   Plaintiffs in the case are suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Secretary Kennedy for acting arbitrarily and capriciously when he unilaterally changed Covid-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant people.   Secretary Kennedy has also unjustly dismissed 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and appointed replacements who have historically espoused anti-vaccine viewpoints. This committee has proceeded to undermine the science behind vaccine recommendations.   The lawsuit asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions to enjoin Secretary Kennedy’s rescissions of Covid vaccine recommendations and a declaratory judgment pronouncing the change in recommendations as unlawful.   “This administration is an existential threat to vaccination in America, and those in charge are only just getting started. If left unchecked, Secretary Kennedy will accomplish his goal of ridding the United States of vaccines, which would unleash a wave of preventable harm on our nation’s children,” said Richard H. Hughes IV, partner at Epstein Becker Green and lead counsel for the plaintiffs.   “The professional associations for pediatricians, internal medicine physicians, infectious disease physicians, high-risk pregnancy physicians, and public health professionals will not stand idly by as our system of prevention is dismantled. This ends now.”   The lawsuit charges that a coordinated set of actions by HHS and Secretary Kennedy were designed to mislead, confuse, and gradually desensitize the public to anti-vaccine and anti-science rhetoric, and that he has routinely flouted federal procedural rules.   These actions include blocking CDC communications, unexplained cancellations of vaccine panel meetings at the FDA and CDC, announcing studies to investigate non-existent links between vaccines and autism, unilaterally overriding immunization recommendations, and replacing the diverse members of ACIP with a slate of individuals biased against sound vaccine facts.   The anonymous individual plaintiff in the lawsuit is a pregnant woman who is at immediate risk for being unable to get the Covid-19 vaccine booster because of the Secretarial Directive, despite her high risk for exposure to infectious diseases from working as a physician at a hospital.   The plaintiff organizations urge parents and patients to follow their qualified medical professionals' vaccine guidance.   Susan J. Kressly, M.D., FAAP, President, AAP:   “The American Academy of Pediatrics is alarmed by recent decisions by HHS to alter the routine childhood immunization schedule. These decisions are founded in fear and not evidence, and will make our children and communities more vulnerable to infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough, and influenza. Our immunization system has long been a cornerstone of U.S. public health, but actions by the current administration are jeopardizing its success. As we pursue action to restore science to U.S. vaccination policy, AAP will continue to provide the science-based, trusted recommendations that every American deserves.”   Jason M. Goldman, MD, MACP, President, ACP:   “The American College of Physicians is highly concerned about the administration’s recent actions regarding ACIP and the negative impact it will have on our patients and our physician practices. Destabilizing a trusted source and its evidence-based process for helping guide decision-making for vaccines to protect the public health in our country erodes public confidence in our government’s ability to ensure the health of the American public and contributes to confusion and uncertainty. As physicians, we require reliable, science-based guidance that is based on the best available evidence, developed through an evidence-based and transparent process, to ensure the safety, welfare, and lives of our patients.”   http://www.acponline.org/acp-newsroom/leading-medical-professional-societies-patient-sue-hhs-robert-f-kennedy-jr-for-unlawful-unilateral http://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/32580 http://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286605/gov.uscourts.mad.286605.1.0.pdf   Mar. 2025   U.S. to End Vaccine Funding for Poor Children. (NYT, agencies)   The Trump administration intends to terminate the United States’ financial support for Gavi, the organization that has helped purchase critical vaccines for children in developing countries, saving millions of lives over the past quarter century, and to significantly scale back support for efforts to combat malaria, one of the biggest killers globally.   Gavi is estimated to have saved the lives of 19 million children since it was set up 25 years ago with the US contributing 13% of its budget, the New York Times said.   The terminated U.S. grant to Gavi was worth $2.6 billion through 2030. Gavi was counting on a pledge made last year by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. for its next funding cycle.   New vaccines with the promise to save millions of lives in low-income countries, such as one to protect children from severe malaria and another to protect teenage girls against the virus that causes cervical cancer, have recently become available, and Gavi was expanding the portfolio of support it could give those countries.   The loss of U.S. funds will set back the organization’s ability to continue to provide its basic range of services — such as immunization for measles and polio — to children in the poorest countries, let alone expand to include new vaccines.   By Gavi’s own estimate, the loss of U.S. support may mean 75 million children do not receive routine vaccinations in the next five years, with more than 1.2 million children dying as a result.   Mark Suzman’s CEO of the Gates Foundation said: "I am deeply disturbed by news reports that the U.S. Administration is considering withdrawing its support for Gavi. If true, and if Congress allows this to happen, the impacts will be devastating, including possibility of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of preventable deaths, especially among mothers and children.   http://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/26/health/usaid-cuts-gavi-bird-flu.html http://www.gavi.org http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/msf-statement-us-decision-withdraw-who http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2025/01/us-withdrawal-world-health-organization http://www.who.int/news/item/16-01-2025-who-launches-us-1.5-billion-health-emergency-appeal-to-tackle-unprecedented-global-health-crises   Feb. 2025   American chaos: standing up for health and medicine - The Lancet Medical Journal   Withdrawal from WHO and the Paris Agreements. USAID shuttered and aid halted, ceasing health programmes globally. A freeze on US$3 trillion worth of federal grants and loans, jeopardising the functioning of Medicaid. A sweeping pause on key activities across the National Institutes of Health (the world's largest biomedical research institution). Stop work orders at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Denial of gender diversity. The Mexico City policy reinstated. Communications blackouts, which saw the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report not published for the first time in 60 years. Donald Trump's actions domestically and globally are not a measured reappraisal of US priorities. They are a sweeping and damaging attack on the health of the American people and those dependent on US foreign assistance.   They are also an attack on the health and medical research community. Researchers’ ability to work has been severely limited or stopped altogether. Free speech is restricted. Use of certain terms is banned on US Government websites (and in manuscripts submitted to scientific journals), including “gender”, “transgender”, “LGBT”, and “non-binary”, and a directive has paused the submission of new work for publication for all CDC employees and contractors. At The Lancet, the impact has already been felt. Reviewers are declining and authors are self-censoring. Health institutions may be hesitant to criticise the new administration publicly, but this timidity is a mistake. Trump's actions must be called out for the damage they are doing.   The 90-day freeze of US aid, including funds for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief—even with a waiver for “life-saving humanitarian programs”—has left services in limbo, particularly for HIV prevention and key populations. These are not abstract concerns. Swathes of health workers have been fired, clinics have closed, and patients have been affected, as World Reports in this issue show. Elon Musk has called USAID “evil” and a “criminal organisation”, peddling falsehoods in an attempt to justify gutting, if not abolishing, the agency. These decisions are deeply wrong, with far-reaching impacts that set back decades of gains in disease control and health equity. Trump's actions are a particular attack on women's health, notably sexual and reproductive health and rights. The gradual progress that has been made on climate and health is now likely to stall or even reverse. More people will get ill and more people will die.   This moment is a test. How should our community react? The immediate result has been confusion, disruption, and disorientation, but the response cannot be dictated by fear or resignation. There is a need for focus, strategy, and—indeed—hope. Not all executive orders will survive legal challenges. Some orders have been tempered or adjusted thanks to civil society, journalists, government whistleblowers, and some members of Congress who have been vocal about the immediate harms. The health, medical, and scientific communities have a vital role in advocating for their patients, defending programmes, and lobbying for policies and institutions that are good for health and wellbeing. Bipartisan support for global health in the USA has given way to deep polarisation, and the global health community must contend with the fact that the USA is an unreliable partner. As Ilona Kickbusch notes in a Comment in this issue, other member states need to finance and build an organisation that is fit for the challenges ahead.   The health community has overcome huge obstacles many times before to make enormous contributions to humanity's wellbeing. Those experiences have crystalised a vision about what health is, and what it can be. That everyone has a right to health. That the health of Americans is contingent on the health of everyone, everywhere—and vice versa. That cooperation and constructive partnerships are vital, and that science has the ability not only to advance our understanding of the world but also to bring people together. That health is a social good, beneficial for societies, a driver of economies, and a path to development. That medicine can help people at their lowest, alleviate suffering, and improve lives. That equity—treating according to need—is fundamental to what medicine is. And that to care is an act not of weakness, but of strength.   The past 3 weeks have generated much anger, fear, and sorrow—but it is no time for panic. The medical and scientific communities must come together and stand up for this vision. In that spirit, The Lancet will be a focal point of accountability over the next 4 years, monitoring and reviewing the actions of the US Government and the consequences of its decisions for health.   http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)00237-5/fulltext http://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r116 http://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r392 http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00562-w http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/msf-statement-us-decision-withdraw-who http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2025/01/us-withdrawal-world-health-organization http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/01/1159266 http://www.kff.org/policy-watch/how-much-global-health-funding-goes-through-usaid/ http://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/02/health/usaid-cuts-deaths-infections.html http://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/08/health/trump-usaid-health-aid.html http://theconversation.com/usaids-apparent-demise-and-the-us-withdrawal-from-who-put-millions-of-lives-worldwide-at-risk-and-imperil-us-national-security-249260 http://www.cgdev.org/blog/global-health-security-strategic-investment-americas-safety-strength-and-prosperity http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/child-asthma-will-worsen-with-trumps-pollution-rollbacks-and-rfk-jr-s-cdc/
	View more stories