New Trump labor official has history of racist, sexist and conspiratorial posts
Jessico Bowman announced last week that she was appointed deputy chief of staff of the Bureau of International Labor Affairs at the labor department. According to the bureau's website, its job is to lead 'the US Department of Labor's efforts to ensure that workers around the world are treated fairly and are able to share in the benefits of the global economy'.
Bowman has deleted her account on X and Facebook accounts since announcing her hiring.
In posts seen by the Guardian, Bowman falsely claimed on X in June 2024 that the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol was 'a Democrat plot', adding 'there was a war game simulation and a transition integrity project that planned this out. They thought Trump would win. They stole the election and then created violence and gas lit, jailed us, without due process, and or financially drained us into a silent acceptance.'
Several baseless conspiracy theories have been spread by far-right influencers about the January 6 insurrection in 2021, including ones that claimed they were an inside job or that the crimes were fabricated and didn't happen.
Bowman had previously worked as national secretary for the Republican Liberty Caucus, a libertarian-leaning political action organization.
Her posts include several sexually graphic posts about Kamala Harris during the 2024 election, including claiming Harris had 'hawk tuah experience' and 'hawk tuah'd her way to the White House', tying the presidential candidate to a viral video referencing oral sex.
She also posted a sexually graphic photo of a cookie with Harris's face on it, and a photo of a sexually suggestive rock formation she said was named after Harris.
In a July 2024 post on X, Bowman wrote: 'Kamala isn't a black woman. She is Indian… Why not just get a real black woman instead of the wish.com version?'
Also in July 2024, Bowman wrote in response to the passing of veteran Black Democrat congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee that she 'passed away from her battle with cancer or perhaps severe late stage TDS [Trump Derangement Syndrome]'.
She also wrote in July 2024 that Biden 'has definitely rigged the 2024 election'.
Rightwing conspiracy theorist and Trump influencer, Laura Loomer, praised Bowman for the appointment. Bowman contributed an article in April 2025 to Loomer's website criticizing the group Indivisible, a progressive non-profit group founded in 2016 in response to the Trump victory.
'Unlike the Tea Party, which emerged organically from the working class and reshaped a political party from the ground up, Indivisible was always a top-down operation: Soros-backed, consultant-run, and posing as grassroots,' Bowman wrote.
Under Trump, the labor department has seen millions of dollars in grants cut, many midway through multiyear projects. The 2026 budget proposal requested $70m in funds for ILAB, a drop from a request of over $162m in funding for fiscal year 2025.
In an interview with rightwing news site Breitbart earlier this year, Bowman claimed 'there is a communist takeover of our country,' referring to Democratic leaning grassroots groups, claiming they want to 'do away with our Constitution'. She claimed she 'infiltrated' the group Indivisible and claimed the group had stolen a document from the Tea Party and made millions of dollars from them.
She also claimed in the interview, without any evidence, that USAID – the government-backed aid organization shuttered by Trump and Elon Musk – funded these groups. 'Do I think USAID funneled into them? Absolutely, I really do believe they did.'
In June 2025, Bowman replied: 'WTF is this foreign invasion,' in response to a welcome home speech given by Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and detained for 104 days before a court ordered his release, ruling his detention was unlawful.
The US Department of Labor did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the posts made by Bowman.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
26 minutes ago
- Sky News
Michael Clarke Q&A: How much will Putin get away with at Alaska meeting with Trump?
Send us your questions about Trump-Putin meeting and war in Ukraine Michael Clarke, our military analyst, is back later today to answer your Ukraine war questions. It could be a hugely significant week for the future of the conflict and peace in Europe, with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meeting in Alaska on Friday. Use the form at the top of this page to get in touch with your question for Clarke. He'll answer them live at 2pm.
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Kamala Harris slammed over insanely mean-spirited way she treated JD Vance's children
JD Vance revealed that his family's transition into the vice president's residence was awkward, after Vice President Kamala Harris ignored the tradition of inviting his family to visit the property before the inauguration. 'They had never seen this house and Usha really wanted to show them,' Vance revealed. He said that he and his staff knew the politics of the situation could be uncomfortable, but proposed the idea of Usha and the kids visiting the home to Harris and her staff. 'They were rebuffed,' Vance said. The vice president's residence is a 9,000 square foot Queen Anne style home with 33-rooms, a wraparound porch, grand staircases and elegant turrets. Modern vice presidents typically host the incoming vice president and their families to introduce them to the residence that is about two miles from the White House. Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynn welcomed incoming Vice President Joe Biden in 2009 and the Bidens extended the same courtesy to the Pence family in 2016. The Pence family didn't host Harris and her husband Doug Emhoff to the residence in the aftermath of the 2020 election. The coronavirus pandemic and the politically tumultuous environment surrounding Trump's challenge to the results complicated a meet-up. Sources close to Harris at the time explained that she and Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff were preoccupied with pressing matters—namely a canceled overseas trip and the wildfires in California, according to CBS News. But some people view Harris' response to Vance as a snub, which the vice president addressed in an interview with the Katie Miller podcast. 'Wow, Kamala's already dodging basic courtesy?' wrote one user on social media, 'Refusing to let the kids see their future home is just petty.' 'Very telling. Thank goodness we literally dodged that bullet,' wrote another person. 'It's probably just as well that his sweet young children weren't exposed to that woman & her dysfunctional family members,' another Vance supporter unloaded. Vance said that Harris left a 'nice note' in his office that was 'boilerplate' and 'not particularly profound' but very 'polite.' Not since Vice President Al Gore and his family moved into the home in 1993 have young children lived in the vice president's residence. The Bidens frequently hosted his grandchildren in the building and Harris welcomed her young nieces for visits. But the Vance family have now made the home their own, complete with desks for the kids to do school work and a golf simulator for the vice president. 'It actually feels like a real home now,' he said. Vance said that Usha Vance still liked to go grocery shopping, but that they still had a staff to keep the house stocked with food and prepare meals. 'It's kind of a crazy new world we live in, but there are definitely perks to it,' he admitted. He conceded he still liked to make breakfast for the kids to keep some normalcy around the house. 'I try to have as many of these rituals as possible that just remind the kids, I'm still your dad, we still have a mostly normal family life, even though there are cameras constantly around,' he said.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump swallowing Putin's lies is a bigger threat to Ukraine than bombs
Wars do not have to be won. Total victories loom largest in the popular imagination because those are the stories nations always tell to sustain patriotic feeling. The fuller version of history is written in stalemates. That is worth remembering when Donald Trump meets Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. Both leaders have incentives to pretend that Ukraine's fate can be settled decisively without any Ukrainians at the negotiating table. That doesn't make it so. For the US president, this is a project of personal vanity. He promised to end the war within days of returning to the White House. The persistence of hostilities seven months after his inauguration is a rebuke to his self-image as the world's master dealmaker. Putin also once thought the war could be concluded swiftly. He launched his all-out invasion in February 2022 expecting Kyiv to fall within weeks. When Ukrainian resistance thwarted that plan, the Russian president switched to a long game of attrition, relying on superior troop numbers and aerial bombardment to degrade Ukraine's viability as a sovereign state. Russia's industrial base and public opinion have been fired up for perpetual war. Kremlin propagandists boast of the nation's limitless military stamina, while Russian commanders keep promising to break through enemy lines and initiate the long-awaited capitulation. Putin has to believe in the inevitability of Ukrainian defeat because any other scenario – even a ceasefire that allows him to hold territory captured so far – leaves the historic mission he set himself unfulfilled. He will harbour a vengeful grievance for as long as Volodymyr Zelenskyy is president of a country that is free to arm itself and pursue an independent policy of integration with other European democracies. Any border or treaty that prevents the Kremlin dictating Ukraine's strategic orientation is illegitimate in Putin's eyes. That won't prevent him signing bits of paper as a tactical expedient. The Russian president recognises that he has tested his American counterpart's patience. He has lost ground to Zelenskyy in the competition to shape Trump's explanation for why the war persists when he has called for peace. The Ukrainian president has bounced back from his televised humiliation in the White House in February, when he was harangued for ingratitude and blamed for inciting the invasion of his own country. Deft diplomacy, underwritten by Nato leaders pledging to pay Kyiv's military bills, bought a sliver of recognition from Trump that maybe things were more complicated than previously thought; that Putin was prone to 'bullshit'; that his professed interest in peace was contradicted by the volume of bombs he kept dropping on Ukrainian civilians. The Alaska powwow is happening because Trump started setting ceasefire deadlines and threatening Moscow with sanctions. Putin needed to offer some affectation of willingness to compromise. He calculated that the spectacle of a summit, combined with some artfully ambiguous signals around 'land swaps', would appeal to Trump's confidence in his own charisma and his belief that a deal is there for the doing. Putin will use the encounter to frame the conflict in terms that chime with Trump's warped and historically illiterate reading of the story. It is the version in which a devious, criminal Zelenskyy bamboozles a senescent Joe Biden into throwing away heaps of US treasure on a crazy, losing bet. The war is nearly won anyway, Putin will say. Ukraine cannot prevail, but can sucker its allies into throwing good money after bad. He will outline a future of lucrative commercial relations between two great powers whose potential friendship has been sabotaged by a roguish European province that hardly even counts as a proper country. He will make grotesque territorial claims, covering places not yet conquered by Russian troops, and present this as the bare minimum of a reasonable allocation of land to Moscow. He will insist on Ukrainian 'demilitarisation' – in effect guaranteeing the country's vulnerability to some future incursion – and call it essential for the sake of Russian security. We know these are the demands because Putin has been making them for months. He restated them earlier this month. Trump doesn't have to fall in a bromantic swoon at Putin's feet to make the summit a success for Russia. The damage will be done if he emerges from negotiations parroting talking points from the Kremlin script. The fear among Ukraine's European allies is that he will proudly outline a ceasefire proposal on terms that Zelenskyy cannot possibly accept – an unjust, unworkable partition of his country along lines drawn by the tyrant who invaded it. Putin will then claim that he tried to talk peace and only Ukrainian intransigence prolongs the war. Less bleak scenarios are conceivable. Trump's newfound scepticism about Putin might withstand corrosion by flattery. The Russian leader's confidence in an imminent battlefield breakthrough might prove misplaced – a symptom of the brittle, authoritarian ego that only gives audience to sycophants bearing good tidings. He might be overestimating Russia's economic resilience against sanctions. He might one day find ordinary Russians losing the will to sacrifice a generation of young men for a goal of national redemption that keeps receding over the horizon. When the domestic economic and political incentives change, Putin will get serious about a ceasefire. The task of Ukraine's allies is to hasten that moment by sustaining maximum military aid to Kyiv and financial pressure on Moscow. Even then, a settlement would realistically leave some Ukrainian land under de facto permanent Russian occupation, behind heavily fortified lines. It will be a stalemate backed with sufficient deterrents to turn a hot war cold. It could end up looking something like the demilitarised zone on the Korean peninsula, separating two sides that are technically still at war, although the armistice was signed in 1953 For now, the challenge for Zelenskyy and his allies is handling a US president who talks about war and peace in terms detached from any moral, historical or strategic context. Trump draws no meaningful distinction between a settlement that allows Ukraine to thrive as an independent state and one that satisfies the appetite of a Russian president bent on conquest. He values two kinds of deal – those that make him richer, and those that allow him to luxuriate in the status of a great dealmaker. If he thinks such benefits are available by abandoning American allies and interests there is no reason to think he wouldn't do it. That will be Putin's aim in Alaska. He has no intention of ending the war just because the White House demands it, but he knows he must pretend to want peace. And he knows his best hope of defeating Ukraine is to manipulate Trump into bullying Kyiv towards capitulation, while imagining that his own humiliation at Kremlin hands is some kind of personal victory. Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist
