New White House lawyer described himself as a "raging misogynist," praised Nazi theorist
Andrew Kloster, the newly-appointed general counsel for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the federal government's human resources agency, is a self-described "raging misogynist" who said that "slaves owe us reparations" and "consent is probably modern society's most pernicious fetish," according to a report from the Project on Government Oversight.
During President Donald Trump's first term, Kloster served as associate director in the White House Office of Presidential Personnel and deputy general counsel at the OPM. He is also an active member of the Federalist Society, a right-wing legal network that in turn lauds him as a "fixture in the conservative movement."
As the OPM's chief lawyer, he will have wide-ranging responsibility over Trump's plans to strip protections from professional civil servants, with the apparent goal of firing some of them to make an example and installing political loyalists in their place. The OPM has already issued a slew of memos issuing orders to that effect, in addition to implementing a total hiring freeze and banning pro-diversity practices, threatening "adverse consequences" for those who do not report attempts to conceal such practices by their colleagues.
Shortly after his appointment as general counsel at the OPM, the POGO compiled records of sexist and racist remarks he made online, but did not publish the one part of their query that Kloster said was "false" when reached for comment.
But according to POGO, the man now in charge of the federal government's H.R. department did not specifically deny a slew of other comments that were published. In a response to a 2012 post on The Volokh Conspiracy legal blog about laws prohibiting sex with animals, Kloster wrote that "consent is probably modern society's most pernicious fetish." In February 2023, about six months after he was served a temporary restraining order for domestic violence — in a case that was dismissed days later after an agreement — he tweeted that "I need a woman who looks like she got punched."
Two days later, he said that he's a "100% women respecter precisely because I'm a raging misogynist ... I'm so kind you'll want to kill yourself and die, which is the goal." After a week, he re-emerged with a tweet that "slaves built america. Therefore,,, Slaves owe us reparations."
Kloster also appeared to express admiration for German political theorist Carl Schmitt, a staunch Nazi and opponent of liberalism who helped Adolf Hitler consolidate legal and executive power over the entire state.
"I do think Schmitt stands the test of time, every political crisis continues to just rhyme with his analysis of the conflict between liberalism and democracy," he wrote in a 2024 post that defended him from critiques by his American counterpart Leo Strauss, who like Schmitt was a proponent of reactionary thought.
According to Steven Monacelli, a special investigative reporter for the Texas Observer, the email address Kloster used to sign up for his X (formerly Twitter) account appears in a leak for an escort review website.
Kloster made the social media posts just as he began a stint as general counsel for former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Florida, who was recently investigated for child sex trafficking and statutory rape. During the 2020 election, he allegedly yelled at election workers and police while acting as an observer for the Wisconsin Republican Party — an accusation he rejects — and participated in a GOP-led effort to legally challenge the election results that ultimately found no evidence of voter fraud.
Days after the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, he responded to a tweet suggesting a 'civil war' was inevitable with hand clap emojis between the words 'Do it.'
A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How do Israel and Iran tensions impact the U.S.?
DAYTON, Ohio (WDTN) — Tensions continue to rise after an Israeli attack that targeted Iran's nuclear program. This comes before President Trump was scheduled to hold peace talks between the two countries. 2 NEWS spoke with local experts on what this all means for U.S. security. Five things to know about Israel's attack on Iran There are still a lot more questions than answers after this strike, as both sides continue to warn the other about continued attacks and retaliatory attacks, but one Cedarville University professor says any harm coming to U.S. soil is still relatively low. 'Tensions have really been rising between the two, especially in recent years,' said Dr. Glen Duerr, Cedarville University professor of international studies. Israel and Iran have been exchanging strikes over the past 24 hours, all centered around Iran's growth in nuclear weaponry. 'It must be at a point where Mossad, the roughly equivalent of Israel's CIA, said that Iran is a danger,' said Duerr. 'They're getting to a breakout point, where they need to act.' Duerr says a lot escalated following the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. 'Especially after October 7, 2023, when Israel's territory was attacked, and notably, as well, Iran for the first time directly attacked Israel via drone in April and then again in October of 2024,' said Duerr. Concerns have been raised as to if the U.S. could see an attack of this scale, or even a cybersecurity attack — especially towards prominent military locations like Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. But Dr. Duerr doesn't see that happening. 'It's certainly possible, but not likely. I think the target is Israel, although the Israeli and American defense industries are very, very closely coordinated, including in this area around Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,' said Duerr. 'Certainly Iran could target the United States in terms of a cyberattack, but it's the timing doesn't make an awful lot of sense.' Israel attacks Iran's capital with explosions booming across Tehran 2 NEWS reached out to WPAFB to see if they have increased security in response to the recent activity, but have not heard back. President Trump has attempted to hold peace talks between the two countries, but the outcomes of what could happen due to this conflict are endless. 'My sense is that we'll see this kind of lower level tension, some exchanges between the two continue with low intensity into the future until something that changes, whether it's Iran's nuclear weapons program being discontinued or, heaven forbid, something broader that happens in the Middle East as well,' said Duerr. Duerr tells 2 NEWS that the conflict will be continuing — especially if Israel feels that Iran's nuclear program could reach a critical breakout point. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's Africa strategy may become a double-edged sword
With US President Donald Trump on a cost-cutting warpath since starting his second term, aid to Africa has been slashed and now defence spending is in his sights - but could these approaches cost more in the long run? The phrase his administration presses on Europe to assume more of the costs of its own defence is "burden sharing". This is the challenge that Washington is now throwing down to African armies too - and they are far less comfortably resourced to take it on. Moreover, having paid dearly in lives and money, in the struggle to hold back the spreading reach of jihadist armed groups across the Sahel, the Lake Chad basin and Somalia over recent years, they could be forgiven for feeling that they already carry much of the burden - and for the sake not just of their own continent but the wider international community too. Benin, which has lost more than 80 soldiers in jihadist attacks since the start of the year, is just one example. "The epicentre of terrorism on the globe" is how the Sahel was described a few days ago by Gen Michael Langley, who as head of US Africa Command (Africom) oversees the American military presence south of the Sahara. In briefings and interviews over the past few weeks, he has graphically outlined the threat that jihadist groups will present if their push southward towards the Gulf of Guinea succeeds. "One of the terrorists' new objectives is gaining access to West African coasts. If they secure access to the coastline, they can finance their operations through smuggling, human trafficking and arms trading. This not only puts African nations at risk but also raises the chance of threats reaching US shores." Gen Langley has admitted that the current upsurge in militant attacks is "deeply concerning". Yet he has also repeatedly hammered home a core message: the US is minded to rein back its own sub-Saharan military operations, leaving local armies to take on more of the defence burden. Some 6,500 personnel are currently deployed in Africa by the US military and a 2019 list published by Africom mentioned 13 "enduring" American bases across the continent and a further 17 more temporary facilities. But some of these installations, including the purpose-built drone base at Agadez in Niger, have already been shut down, in particular after military juntas seized power in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso since 2020. And it now looks as if the once-ambitious American operational footprint will be pruned back quite a lot more. Perhaps we will see more air power deployed from offshore to hit militant targets - Gen Langley says there have been 25 strikes in Somalia this year, double the 2024 total - but a much thinner permanent on-the-ground military presence. "Some things that we used to do, we may not do anymore," he recently told a conference in Kenya's capital, Nairobi, that brought together chiefs of defence staff and other senior officers from 37 countries. "Our aim is not to serve as a permanent crutch, but to achieve US security objectives that overlap with our partners. We should be able to help African nations build the self-reliance they need to independently confront terrorism and insurgencies." In the bluntness of his language Gen Langley reflects the stark change of outlook and policy that has come from January's change of power at the White House. "We have set our priorities now - protecting the homeland." What matters to the no-longer-so-new Trump II administration, the general made clear in a Pentagon publication last week, is fighting terrorists - particularly those who might attack the US. Other priorities are countering the spread of Chinese military influence across Africa and protecting freedom of maritime navigation through key trade choke points such as the Strait of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal and the Bab el-Mandab Strait at the southern end of the Red Sea. In some respects, the focus on training and capacity building that Gen Langley now expounds is not so very different from the approach of previous American administrations, Republican as well as Democrat. He lauds the National Guard State Partnership Program, through which individual US states have been helping to build the capacity of government security forces across Africa and other parts of the world - for the past three decades. France too is pursuing this approach, with the closure of bases in Chad and Senegal, while those in Ivory Coast and Gabon have been handed over to their governments, with only small French training teams left behind to work alongside African colleagues. However, in other respects, the Trump administration's Africa strategy represents a drastic shrinkage in outlook and - critics might argue - a conscious retreat from addressing the factors that drive instability, conflict and terrorism, particularly in the Sahel, which is among the poorest regions on the planet. For under President Joe Biden the US looked far beyond the military realm alone in its efforts to counter the both the growing reach of jihadist groups and other sources of violence. And Gen Langley, as Africom chief, was an articulate exponent of this much broader thinking. Only last year, in an interview with the Associated Press news agency, he outlined what he described as a "whole of government" response to the proliferation of conflict, stressing the importance of good governance and action to tackle the fragilities of African states and the impacts of desertification, crop failure and environmental change. This approach openly recognised that recruitment by armed groups and the spread of violence is fuelled not only by jihadist ideology, but also by a host of social and economic factors, including the stresses now afflicting farming and pastoralist livelihoods. Gen Langley himself does not seem to have abandoned this analysis, recently noting how Ivory Coast had countered the jihadist threat to its northern border areas by complementing security force deployments with development projects. He could equally have pointed to the success of a similar approach pursued by the president of Niger, Mohamed Bazoum, before he was deposed in the July 2023 coup. But of course, these days Africom must operate within the context of a US foreign policy radically reshaped under Trump. There are even rumours that it could be downgraded to become a subsidiary of the US command in Europe and Gen Langley suggests African governments should tell Washington what they thought of this idea. Already the separate Africa unit at the radically slimmed down National Security Council at the White House is reportedly being wound up and integrated into the Middle East-North Africa section. Its director, Gen Jami Shawley, an Africa specialist appointed to the role only in March, has now been assigned to more general strategic functions. Addressing Congress this week, Gen Langley warned about China's and Russia's African ambitions: Beijing's agility at capitalising on the US's absence and Moscow's ability to seize military opportunities created by chaos and instability. Given these concerns, some might wonder if the general is discreetly signally his doubts about a slimmed down Africa strategy. Meanwhile, under the "efficiency drive" led, until recently, by tech billionaire Elon Musk, the American government's main international development agencies, USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, have been effectively shut down. The spine of the new US economic engagement with Africa is now private sector trade and investment. But business generally needs to operate in a stable and secure context - which Africa's most fragile and violence-prone regions cannot offer. And in winding up the American development agencies, the Trump administration has stepped aside from funding the rural projects and social programmes that sought to address land and water pressures and lack of economic opportunity, the key drivers of conflict - and the jihadist groups' recruitment of frustrated rural young people. For the fragile regions that are the main sources of jihadist violence the US response is reduced to the purely military, and now it is seeking to shift even most of that on to the shoulders of African states that already struggle to respond adequately to a plethora of challenges and responsibilities. Paul Melly is a consulting fellow with the Africa Programme at Chatham House in London. The region with more 'terror deaths' than rest of world combined Freed captive tells BBC of life in West African jihadist base Why Trump is on the warpath in Somalia 'My wife fears sex, I fear death' - impacts of the USAID freeze Trump's tariffs could be death knell for US-Africa trade pact Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica Focus on Africa This Is Africa
34 minutes ago
Trump clears path for Nippon investment in US Steel, so long as it fits gov't terms
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order paving the way for a Nippon Steel investment in U.S. Steel, so long as the Japanese company complies with a 'national security agreement' submitted by the federal government. Trump's order didn't detail the terms of the national security agreement. But the iconic American steelmaker and Nippon Steel said in a joint statement that the agreement stipulates that approximately $11 billion in new investments will be made by 2028 and includes giving the U.S. government a ' golden share" — essentially veto power to ensure the country's national security interests are protected against cutbacks in steel production. 'We thank President Trump and his Administration for their bold leadership and strong support for our historic partnership," the two companies said. "This partnership will bring a massive investment that will support our communities and families for generations to come. We look forward to putting our commitments into action to make American steelmaking and manufacturing great again.' The companies have completed a U.S. Department of Justice review and received all necessary regulatory approvals, the statement said. 'The partnership is expected to be finalized promptly,' the statement said. U.S. Steel rose $2.66, or 5%, to $54.85 in afterhours trading Friday. Nippon Steel's original bid to buy the Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel in late 2023 had been valued at $55 per share. The companies offered few details on how the golden share would work, what other provisions are in the national security agreement and how specifically the $11 billion would be spent. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the order 'ensures U.S. Steel will remain in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and be safeguarded as a critical element of America's national and economic security.' James Brower, a Morrison Foerster lawyer who represents clients in national security-related matters, said such agreements with the government typically are not disclosed to the public, particularly by the government. They can become public, but it's almost always disclosed by a party in the transaction, such as a company — like U.S. Steel — that is publicly held, Brower said. The mechanics of how a golden share would work will depend on the national security agreement, but in such agreements it isn't unusual to give the government approval rights over specific activities, Brower said. U.S. Steel made no filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday. Nippon Steel originally offered nearly $15 billion to purchase U.S. Steel in an acquisition that had been delayed on national security concerns starting during Joe Biden's presidency. As it sought to win over American officials, Nippon Steel gradually increased the amount of money it was pledging to invest into U.S. Steel. American officials now value the transaction at $28 billion, including the purchase bid and a new electric arc furnace — a more modern steel mill that melts down scrap — that they say Nippon Steel will build in the U.S. after 2028. Nippon Steel had pledged to maintain U.S. Steel's headquarters in Pittsburgh, put U.S. Steel under a board with a majority of American citizens and keep plants operating. It also said it would protect the interests of U.S. Steel in trade matters and it wouldn't import steel slabs that would compete with U.S. Steel's blast furnaces in Pennsylvania and Indiana. Trump opposed the purchase while campaigning for the White House, and using his authority Biden blocked the transaction on his way out of the White House. But Trump expressed openness to working out an arrangement once he returned to the White House in January. Trump said Thursday that he would as president have 'total control' of what U.S. Steel did as part of the investment. Trump said then that the deal would preserve '51% ownership by Americans,' although Nippon Steel has never backed off its stated intention of buying and controlling U.S. Steel as a wholly owned subsidiary. 'We have a golden share, which I control,' Trump said. Trump added that he was 'a little concerned' about what presidents other than him would do with their golden share, 'but that gives you total control.' The proposed merger had been under review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, during the Trump and Biden administrations. The order signed Friday by Trump said the CFIUS review provided 'credible evidence' that Nippon Steel 'might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,' but such risks might be 'adequately mitigated' by approving the proposed national security agreement. The order doesn't detail the perceived national security risk and only provides a timeline for the national security agreement. The White House declined to provide details on the terms of the agreement. The order said the draft agreement was submitted to U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel on Friday. The two companies must successfully execute the agreement as decided by the Treasury Department and other federal agencies that are part CFIUS by the closing date of the transaction. Trump reserves the authority to issue further actions regarding the investment as part of the order he signed on Friday.
