Fighting Back

 

A few news items this morning indicating that some people and institutions are fighting the Malignant Fascist's escalating attempts to bully them and nullify our Constitutional freedoms.

Associated Press

The Associated Press hit back at President Donald Trump on Tuesday after being kicked from the White House press pool.

The Trump administration decided to remove the press pool position for newswires altogether this week after they were ordered by a judge to restore AP’s access to the pool rotation, which had been restricted since February.

Reacting to the news on Tuesday evening, AP told CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter, “We are deeply disappointed that the administration has chosen to restrict the access of all wire services, whose fast and accurate White House coverage informs billions of people every single day, rather than reinstate The AP to the wire pool.”

“The wire services represent thousands of news organizations across the U.S. and the world over,” the news organization continued. “Our coverage is used by local newspapers and television stations in all 50 states to inform their communities. The administration’s actions continue to disregard the fundamental American freedom to speak without government control or retaliation. This is a grave disservice to the American people.”

Reuters also criticized the Trump administration’s decision, telling CNN, “It is essential to democracy that the public have access to independent, impartial and accurate news about their government. Any steps by the U.S. government to limit access to the President threatens that principle, both for the public and the world’s media.”

While the official spot in the press pool for newswires has been removed, AP will still be eligible for the two rotating print news spots. CNN reported, however, that despite their eligibility, “In practice this means The AP, Reuters and Bloomberg will have markedly less access than they did in January, when all three were in the pool every day.”

In February, the White House accused AP of “weaponizing language,” citing the organization’s decision to refer to the “Gulf of Mexico” instead of the “Gulf of America,” among other concerns.

Assault on law firms

Solicitors general from past administrations are emerging as some of the most prominent opponents of President Donald Trump’s actions targeting the legal profession.

In recent weeks, at least three of the nation’s top advocates across Republican and Democratic administrations have spoken out against or challenged in court Trump’s executive orders that seek to punish law firms.

“I think this is a moment to stand up,” former President Joe Biden’s solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar told students during an appearance at Harvard Law School last week. “It has been key in our society and in our democracy to hold the executive to account. And there is a legal system that is designed to deal with an issue like this one.”

Two prior solicitors general — Donald Verrilli and Paul Clement — have been instrumental in challenging Trump’s orders in court. Verrilli, appointed by former President Barack Obama, represents the firm Susman Godfrey and Clement, appointed by former President George W. Bush, represents the firm WilmerHale. Both firms are fighting Trump’s orders that cut them off from government contracts, strip their lawyers of security clearances and bar firm employees from interacting with government officials or entering government buildings.

As Trump targets major law firms for employing attorneys who have investigated him or for taking on cases he views as opposed to his personal and political interests, nine firms, including some of the most profitable in the world, have opted to strike deals with the president instead of challenging him in court. But for firms who have chosen to fight the president’s actions, there may be no greater advocates than those who previously spoke for the federal government at the highest level...

Assault on higher education

Harvard University received support from Stanford University and Yale University as its legal battle with the Trump administration continues to draw national attention. 

Representatives from both schools supported Harvard’s decision to reject the government’s demands to rid the institution of diversity, equity and inclusion policies amid other directives. 

“Universities need to address legitimate criticisms with humility and openness. But the way to bring about constructive change is not by destroying the nation’s capacity for scientific research, or through the government taking command of a private institution,” Stanford President Jonathan Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez wrote in a Tuesday statement. 

“Harvard’s objections to the letter it received are rooted in the American tradition of liberty, a tradition essential to our country’s universities, and worth defending,” the two added.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and its Cambridge campus chapter launched a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Saturday in an effort to block the removal of federal funds from Harvard over unfulfilled demands. 

The Department of Education said Monday it would freeze approximately $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million in multiyear contracts for the institution in response to the school’s alleged failure to combat antisemitism. 

“We stand together at a crossroads. American universities are facing extraordinary attacks that threaten the bedrock principles of a democratic society, including rights of free expression, association, and academic freedom,” the Yale AAUP chapter and corresponding faculty wrote in an open letter to the school’s administrators.

They urged leaders to defend free speech, promote university self-governance and proactively work with other colleges and universities in collective defense against political threats. 

Former President Obama also slammed the Trump administration for demanding changes to Harvard’s campus structure.

“Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions — rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect. Let’s hope other institutions follow suit,” he wrote in a Monday post on the social platform X...

Book bans erasing race and gender ("DEI")

Twelve students studying in Pentagon schools in the US and around the world are suing the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, over the book bans he has instigated to remove titles on race and gender from their libraries.

A lawsuit lodged on the students’ behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Tuesday argues that their first amendment rights are being irreparably harmed. The complaint says that the censorship has been applied system-wide across Pentagon schools, and was endangering children by preventing them from learning critical information about health, hygiene, biology and abuse.

The legal action targets Hegseth, the former Fox News host, who has been aggressively pursuing the censorship drive as part of Donald Trump’s war on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). It also names as a defendant the head of the Pentagon school system, Beth Schiavino-Narvaez.

It blames both for violating the students’ first amendment rights by culling library books, and by making curricula changes such as cancelling Women’s and Black History month.

At the center of the lawsuit is the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), the federal school system that runs kindergarten through 12th grade schools. It serves about 67,000 children of both active-duty and civilian personnel in the US military.

Though the schools are run by the Pentagon, they are civilian in status and as such their students have the same first amendment rights as any other US child. The 12 students acting as plaintiffs in the case come from five families ranging from pre-kindergarten to high school in DoDEA schools in the US, Italy and Japan...

We all have to fight the cascading fascism in our own way and time, individually and/or collectively.  To not stand for the rights and freedoms our forefathers fought and died for would be a final betrayal of everything this country once stood for.  This is the existential fight we knew was coming, and now it's here.