Latest news with #GeorgeSoros
Russia Today
9 hours ago
- Business
- Russia Today
Elite Western universities form a corrupt and parasitic empire
US President Donald Trump has banned international students from attending Harvard University, citing national security concerns. The move has sparked widespread condemnation from academics and foreign governments, who warn it could damage America's global influence and reputation for academic openness. At stake is not just Harvard's global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US. But exactly how 'open' is Harvard's admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script. China's swift condemnation of Trump's policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for 'America's international standing' amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government. So, what was behind China's latest gripe? The answer may lie in the unspoken rules of soft power: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US deep state has long recruited foreign students to promote its interests abroad – subsidized by American taxpayers no less. China is apparently playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geostrategic fence. For the time being, a judge has granted Harvard's request for a temporary restraining order against Trump's proposed ban. Come what may, there is one commonsense solution that all parties to this saga would like to avoid: Forcing Ivy League institutions to open their admissions process to public scrutiny. The same institutions that champion open borders, open societies, and open everything will, however, not tolerate any suggestion of greater openness to its admissions process. That would open up a Pandora's Box of global corruption that is systemically ruining nations today. Speaking of corruption – how is this for irony? A star Harvard professor who built her career researching decision-making and dishonesty was just fired and stripped of tenure for fabricating her own data! The Ivy League has a vested interest in perpetuating rising wealth and educational inequalities. It is the only way they can remain atop the global rankings list at the expense of less-endowed peers. Elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT dominate lists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth over $30mn). For example, Harvard alone has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population. These alumni networks provide major donations, corporate partnerships, and exclusive opportunities, reinforcing institutional wealth. If the alma mater's admissions process was rigged in their favor, they have no choice but to cough it up, at least for the sake of their offspring who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle. The total endowment of Princeton University – $34.1 billion in 2024 – translated to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and state-of-the-art facilities. Less prestigious institutions just cannot compete on this university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending per student, and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges overlap with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top 1% of wealthy families. According to the Social Mobility Index (SMI), climbing rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending, driving tuition hikes and exacerbating inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are often overshadowed in traditional rankings, which reward wealth over social impact. Besides, social mobility these days is predetermined at birth, as the global wealth divide becomes unbridgeable. Worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with institutions gaming audits, inflating data, and even bribing reviewers. Take the case of a Southeast Asian diploma mill where some of its initial batch of female students had been arrested for prostitution. Despite its flagrant lack of academic integrity, it grew rapidly to secure an unusually high QS global ranking – ahead of venerable institutions like the University of Pavia, where Leonardo da Vinci studied, and which boasts three Nobel Laureates among its ranks. Does this grotesque inversion of merit make any sense? Government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Recent White House tax cuts and deregulation may further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities while reducing public funding for others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League until Trump took on Harvard. With such ominous trends on the horizon, brace yourselves for an implosion of the global education sector by 2030 – a reckoning mirroring the 2008 financial crisis, but with far graver consequences. And touching on the 2008 crisis, didn't someone remark that 'behind every financial disaster, there's a Harvard economist?' Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps. In fact, I dare say that 'learning' is merely a coincidental output of the Ivy League brand When Lehman Brothers and its lesser peers collapsed in 2008, many Singapore-based corporations eagerly scooped up their laid-off executives. The logic? Fail upward. If these whizz kids were truly talented, why did they miss the glaring warning signs during the lead up to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? The answer lies in the cult of credentialism and an entrenched patronage system. Ivy League MBAs and Rolodexes of central banker contacts are all that matters. The consequences are simply disastrous: A runaway global talent shortage will hit $8.452 trillion in unrealized annual revenues by 2030, more than the projected GDP of India for the same year. Ivy League MBAs often justify their relevance by overcomplicating simple objectives into tedious bureaucratic grinds – all in the name of efficiency, smart systems, and ever-evolving 'best practices'. The result? Doctors now spend more time on paperwork than treating patients, while teachers are buried under layers of administrative work. Ultimately, Ivy League technocrats often function as a vast bureaucratic parasite, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. What kind of universal socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to the world? I can only think of one historical analogue as a future cue: Colonial India, aka the British Raj. This may be a stretch, but bear with me. Lessons from the Raj As Norman Davies pointed out, the Austro-Hungarians had more bureaucrats managing Prague than the British needed to run all of colonial India – a subcontinent that included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it took only 1,500-odd white Indian Civil Service (ICS) officials to govern colonial India until WWI. That is quite staggering to comprehend, unless one grasps how the British and Indian societies are organized along rigid class (and caste) lines. When two corrupt feudal systems mate, their offspring becomes a blueprint for dystopia. India never recovered from this neo-feudal arrangement. If the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let's compare the conditions in the British Raj and China from 1850 to 1976 (when the Cultural Revolution officially ended). During this period, China endured numerous societal setbacks – including rebellions, famines, epidemics, lawlessness, and a world war – which collectively resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 million Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion alone – the most destructive civil war in history – resulted in 20 to 30 million dead, representing 5-10% of China's population at the time. A broad comparison with India during the same period reveals a death toll of 50-70 million, mainly from epidemics and famines. Furthermore, unlike colonial India, many parts of China also lacked central governance. Indian nationalists are quick to blame a variety of bogeymen for their society's lingering failings. Nevertheless, they should ask themselves why US Big Tech-owned news platforms, led by upper-caste Hindu CEOs, no less, showed a decidedly pro-Islamabad bias during the recent Indo-Pakistani military standoff. Maybe, these CEOs are supine apparatchiks, much like their predecessors during the British Raj? Have they been good stewards of the public domain (i.e. internet)? Have they promoted meritocracy in foreign lands? (You can read some stark examples here, here and here). These Indian Big Tech bros, however, showed a lot of vigor and initiative during the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing their employees to take the vaccine or face the pink slip. They led the charge behind the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response, which included an 'unprecedented corporate sector initiative to help India successfully fight COVID-19.' Just check out the credentials of the 'experts' involved here. Shouldn't this task be left to accomplished Indian virologists and medical experts? A tiny few, in the service of a hegemon, can control the fate of billions. India's income inequality is now worse than it was under British rule. As global university inequalities widen further, it is perhaps time to rethink novel approaches to level the education field as many brick and mortar institutions may simply fold during the volatile 2025-30 period. I am optimistic that the use of AI in education will be a great equalizer, but I also fear that Big Tech will force governments into using its proprietary EdTech solutions that are already showing signs of runaway AI hallucinations – simply because the bold new world is all about control and power, not empowerment. Much like the British Raj, I would say.
Russia Today
18 hours ago
- Business
- Russia Today
Elite Western universities are a corrupt, parasitic empire
In a move that has ignited a global uproar, US President Donald Trump banned international students from Harvard University, citing 'national security' and ideological infiltration. The decision, which has been widely condemned by academics and foreign governments alike, apparently threatens to undermine America's 'intellectual leadership and soft power.' At stake is not just Harvard's global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US. But exactly how 'open' is Harvard's admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script. China's swift condemnation of Trump's policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for 'America's international standing' amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government. So, what was behind China's latest gripe? The answer may lie in the unspoken rules of soft power: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US deep state has long recruited foreign students to promote its interests abroad – subsidized by American taxpayers no less. China is apparently playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geostrategic fence. For the time being, a judge has granted Harvard's request for a temporary restraining order against Trump's proposed ban. Come what may, there is one commonsense solution that all parties to this saga would like to avoid: Forcing Ivy League institutions to open their admissions process to public scrutiny. The same institutions that champion open borders, open societies, and open everything will, however, not tolerate any suggestion of greater openness to its admissions process. That would open up a Pandora's Box of global corruption that is systemically ruining nations today. Speaking of corruption – how is this for irony? A star Harvard professor who built her career researching decision-making and dishonesty was just fired and stripped of tenure for fabricating her own data! The Ivy League has a vested interest in perpetuating rising wealth and educational inequalities. It is the only way they can remain atop the global rankings list at the expense of less-endowed peers. Elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT dominate lists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth over $30mn). For example, Harvard alone has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population. These alumni networks provide major donations, corporate partnerships, and exclusive opportunities, reinforcing institutional wealth. If the alma mater's admissions process was rigged in their favor, they have no choice but to cough it up, at least for the sake of their offspring who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle. The total endowment of Princeton University – $34.1 billion in 2024 – translated to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and state-of-the-art facilities. Less prestigious institutions just cannot compete on this university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending per student, and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges overlap with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top 1% of wealthy families. According to the Social Mobility Index (SMI), climbing rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending, driving tuition hikes and exacerbating inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are often overshadowed in traditional rankings, which reward wealth over social impact. Besides, social mobility these days is predetermined at birth, as the global wealth divide becomes unbridgeable. Worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with institutions gaming audits, inflating data, and even bribing reviewers. Take the case of a Southeast Asian diploma mill where some of its initial batch of female students had been arrested for prostitution. Despite its flagrant lack of academic integrity, it grew rapidly to secure an unusually high QS global ranking – ahead of venerable institutions like the University of Pavia, where Leonardo da Vinci studied, and which boasts three Nobel Laureates among its ranks. Does this grotesque inversion of merit make any sense? Government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Recent White House tax cuts and deregulation may further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities while reducing public funding for others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League until Trump took on Harvard. With such ominous trends on the horizon, brace yourselves for an implosion of the global education sector by 2030 – a reckoning mirroring the 2008 financial crisis, but with far graver consequences. And touching on the 2008 crisis, didn't someone remark that 'behind every financial disaster, there's a Harvard economist?' Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps. In fact, I dare say that 'learning' is merely a coincidental output of the Ivy League brand When Lehman Brothers and its lesser peers collapsed in 2008, many Singapore-based corporations eagerly scooped up their laid-off executives. The logic? Fail upward. If these whizz kids were truly talented, why did they miss the glaring warning signs during the lead up to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? The answer lies in the cult of credentialism and an entrenched patronage system. Ivy League MBAs and Rolodexes of central banker contacts are all that matters. The consequences are simply disastrous: A runaway global talent shortage will hit $8.452 trillion in unrealized annual revenues by 2030, more than the projected GDP of India for the same year. Ivy League MBAs often justify their relevance by overcomplicating simple objectives into tedious bureaucratic grinds – all in the name of efficiency, smart systems, and ever-evolving 'best practices'. The result? Doctors now spend more time on paperwork than treating patients, while teachers are buried under layers of administrative work. Ultimately, Ivy League technocrats often function as a vast bureaucratic parasite, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. What kind of universal socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to the world? I can only think of one historical analogue as a future cue: Colonial India, aka the British Raj. This may be a stretch, but bear with me. Lessons from the Raj As Norman Davies pointed out, the Austro-Hungarians had more bureaucrats managing Prague than the British needed to run all of colonial India – a subcontinent that included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it took only 1,500-odd white Indian Civil Service (ICS) officials to govern colonial India until WWI. That is quite staggering to comprehend, unless one grasps how the British and Indian societies are organized along rigid class (and caste) lines. When two corrupt feudal systems mate, their offspring becomes a blueprint for dystopia. India never recovered from this neo-feudal arrangement. If the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let's compare the conditions in the British Raj and China from 1850 to 1976 (when the Cultural Revolution officially ended). During this period, China endured numerous societal setbacks – including rebellions, famines, epidemics, lawlessness, and a world war – which collectively resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 million Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion alone – the most destructive civil war in history – resulted in 20 to 30 million dead, representing 5-10% of China's population at the time. A broad comparison with India during the same period reveals a death toll of 50-70 million, mainly from epidemics and famines. Furthermore, unlike colonial India, many parts of China also lacked central governance. Indian nationalists are quick to blame a variety of bogeymen for their society's lingering failings. Nevertheless, they should ask themselves why US Big Tech-owned news platforms, led by upper-caste Hindu CEOs, no less, showed a decidedly pro-Islamabad bias during the recent Indo-Pakistani military standoff. Maybe, these CEOs are supine apparatchiks, much like their predecessors during the British Raj? Have they been good stewards of the public domain (i.e. internet)? Have they promoted meritocracy in foreign lands? (You can read some stark examples here, here and here). These Indian Big Tech bros, however, showed a lot of vigor and initiative during the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing their employees to take the vaccine or face the pink slip. They led the charge behind the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response, which included an 'unprecedented corporate sector initiative to help India successfully fight COVID-19.' Just check out the credentials of the 'experts' involved here. Shouldn't this task be left to accomplished Indian virologists and medical experts? A tiny few, in the service of a hegemon, can control the fate of billions. India's income inequality is now worse than it was under British rule. As global university inequalities widen further, it is perhaps time to rethink novel approaches to level the education field as many brick and mortar institutions may simply fold during the volatile 2025-30 period. I am optimistic that the use of AI in education will be a great equalizer, but I also fear that Big Tech will force governments into using its proprietary EdTech solutions that are already showing signs of runaway AI hallucinations – simply because the bold new world is all about control and power, not empowerment. Much like the British Raj, I would say.
Russia Today
3 days ago
- Business
- Russia Today
US lawmakers want Soros-linked Polish election ‘violations' addressed
US lawmakers have called on the European Commission to address suspected election fraud in Poland, voicing concern over what they describe as a biased approach ahead of the country's June 1 presidential runoff. In a letter to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast and fellow members expressed 'profound alarm' over developments 'undermining the integrity of democratic processes' in Poland. The letter cited foreign-funded online campaigns backing liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski and the Polish government's refusal to release public funds to the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party. The concerns centered on political ads favoring Trzaskowski, backed by Prime Minister Donald Tusk's Civic Coalition, which were allegedly financed from abroad. Poland's digital watchdog NASK earlier this month flagged paid Facebook ads that promoted Trzaskowski while targeting right-wing candidates Karol Nawrocki and Slawomir Mentzen. While the funding source remains unverified, a Polish outlet linked the campaign to a local NGO connected to US Democratic donor George Soros' Open Society Foundations. US lawmakers warned the campaign 'may have occurred in contravention of Polish law.' Another matter raised in the letter was the Polish government's refusal to release public campaign funds to the PiS party. The funds had previously been blocked due to the party's alleged spending violations during the 2023 parliamentary race. The Supreme Court later overturned the decision, but the verdict was issued by judges appointed under the former PiS-led administration – whom the current government considers illegitimate – and Warsaw has refused to comply and continued to withhold the money. The US lawmakers believe the move violates the rule of law. They also noted that despite the European Commission's vocal criticism and decision to withhold over $150 billion from Poland for alleged rule-of-law violations under the previous PiS government, it has been 'conspicuously silent' in this case. 'This double standard suggests a deliberate effort to tilt the electoral playing field. Such selective enforcement undermines the EU's credibility as a guardian of democratic principles,' they stated. 'These actions, occurring under the European Commission's watch, expose a troubling double-standard in the EU's approach to Poland's rule of law, which demands urgent attention.' The lawmakers requested a briefing with Commission representatives to discuss the concerns. Trzaskowski won 31.1% in the first round, while Nawrocki took 29.7%. Trzaskowski, seen as the pro-Brussels and pro-Ukraine frontrunner, backs increased defense spending and continued support for Kiev. Nawrocki also supports military aid for Ukraine, but opposes NATO and EU membership for Kiev unless Ukraine acknowledges World War II-era massacres of Poles. The European Commission has declined to comment directly on the letter. A spokesperson told Politico, however, that election oversight is a national matter and that the Commission 'does not address electoral processes.'
Daily Mail
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Billionaire Alex Soros shares post to condemn the killing of Israeli embassy staffers... then gets blasted for glaring contradiction
Billionaire megadonor Alex Soros is taking heat after expressing sympathies for a young Israeli diplomat couple who were shot dead by a pro-Palestinian activist. The son of longtime liberal sugar daddy George Soros, in 2023 his father handed over much of his fortune and the chairmanship of his Open Society Foundations. Soros angered many when he posted his thoughts on the killing of Yaron Lischinsky, an Israeli citizen, and Sarah Milgrim, an American, who were a young couple about to be engaged. They were shot dead while leaving an event at the Capital Jewish Museum on Wednesday evening by Elias Rodriguez, 31, who according to police yelled, 'Free, free Palestine ' after he was arrested. Soros wrote Thursday: 'The murder of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky at the Capital Jewish Museum was evil in its most basic form. This brutal antisemitic act must be condemned in the strongest terms.' Many online expressed their fury at what appeared to be hypocrisy from one of the left's leading benefactors. 'Alex Soros unclear how funding rabid Jew-hating organizations and individuals could lead to the killing of Jews,' wrote Joanne Mason. Another X user wrote: 'You and your father fund the mayhem in America and elsewhere. SO, perhaps you should sit this one out.' 'Bro do you own a mirror,' added another. One more said: 'But you'll keep writing the checks to these anti Semitic scum. You did this.' Soros' Open Society Foundation is alleged to give money to causes and groups sympathetic to Palestine and leftist organizations that hate the existence of Israel, according to Fox News. When he took over OSF, Israel's minister of diaspora affairs and social equality Amichai Chikli said he was just like his father in his hatred of the Jewish state. 'It looks like the son is a replica of his father. We have no expectation that his son will be a big Zionist,' he said. His father has also been slammed by Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan. 'For years, Soros has backed and transferred money to organizations supporting BDS that want to isolate Israel,' he said. Alex has described himself as his father's 'loyal parasite' in a recent interview with New York Magazine, adding that for years now, he has been by his father's side learning from the best about how to influence politics. Insiders with deep ties to OSF told the magazine that they thought Jonathan was 'the one' who would, and should take over. One even compared Alex to Roman Roy, the infamous failson in the hit TV show 'Succession.' And now, with the second Trump era in full swing, Alex is coming off a failed election season spent hobnobbing with Democratic elites more determined than ever to use his father's fortune to severely limit the president's power. His vague plan appears to be spending big in the upcoming midterm elections to elect Democrats and erase GOP majorities in the House and Senate. Alex being thrust to center stage comes after years of conservative politicians using George Soros as their bogeyman to mobilize voters. Trump especially has ill feelings for Soros, as at least some of his wealth landed in the coffers of Alvin Bragg when he was running to be the Manhattan District Attorney in 2019. 'Alvin Bragg received in EXCESS OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS from the Radical Left Enemy of "TRUMP," George Soros,' Trump wrote on Truth Social just a week before he was indicted on the Stormy Daniels hush money case. Trump was then dragged into court for weeks during the heat of the 2024 campaign and was later convicted of all 34 felony counts against him. Of course, because Trump won re-election, he avoided all consequences from those convictions. When asked who he thinks should lead the Democrats, a party that doesn't seem to have a clear standard-bearer at the moment, Alex only reinforced that view with his answer. 'Who do I draw inspiration from when I listen to them speak? Josh Shapiro is great. AOC is great. You know, Raphael Warnock is great. You know, Gretchen Whitmer is great. I mean, I like Tim Walz. Chris Murphy. Brian Schatz. Like, these guys are great,' he said. And although he doesn't subscribe to the view that courts will ultimately be enough to sidetrack Trump's agenda, the Soros family donated at least $2 million to Susan Crawford, the Democrat who went on to win the Wisconsin Supreme Court race in early April. Crawford defeated Brad Schimel, who had the backing of Elon Musk and his various Super PACs which donated a combined $22 million. As Alex continues to mature in his leadership role at Open Society Foundations (OSF), he is overseeing the final stages of a vast restructuring of the organization that has been going on since 2017. OSF is down to 500 employees, when eight years ago there were about 1,700. The foundation has also closed or scaled back programs related to public health, early-childhood education, journalism and university scholarships. OSF says will continue it doling out grants to causes it deems worthy, but Alex is certainly more in favor of reorienting the group to focus more directly on political contributions.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Louisiana governor blames progressives for jailbreak
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) doubled down Tuesday on blaming progressive politics for the escape of 10 inmates from a New Orleans jail. Half of the escapees remained at large as of Wednesday morning, after a fifth was captured Tuesday evening. 'The system as a whole is broken in that city, and we intend to fix it,' Landry told NewsNation's Chris Cuomo. Landry, a staunch conservative and ally of President Trump, has repeatedly pointed to billionaire Democratic donor George Soros's influence in Democrat-led New Orleans for creating the circumstances that that allowed 10 inmates to break out of the jail at about 1 a.m. EDT Friday. 'George Soros came over the last decade or so and spent a ton of money in the city of New Orleans, electing these progressive people,' Landry told Cuomo. 'It's like he came [as] Santa Claus, and inside his sack, he put out a DA [district attorney], a sheriff, and I think about six judges, and we have been having problems in the city ever since now.' Landry, who took office last year, has routinely pointed to Hungarian-born Democratic megadonor Soros, 94, as having influence over his state. Soros-linked groups contributed $220,000 to Orleans Parish District Attorney Jason Williams's (D) 2020 election, according to campaign finance records. Landry said the slow criminal justice system in New Orleans left dangerous criminals in a parish-run prison with lower security. 'The problem that I have is the fact that that system and jail has people that have been sitting in those jail cells waiting for sentences,' he told Cuomo. 'If they were sentenced, then they become my problem. I get to take them and put them in a state facility.' William defended his job performances during a news conference Monday. 'If we don't have a complete police report, we can't go forward. If we do go forward, we get tossed out of court by the judge,' he told reporters. Landry previously has blamed Soros's influence for voters' rejection of a constitutional amendment the governor backed in March that sought to overhaul the state's juvenile justice system. Authorities say the group of New Orleans escapees busted into a cell with a broken slider door and escaped through a hole behind a toilet fixture. They were discovered missing during a routine headcount check hours later. Maintenance worker Sterling Williams, 33, has been charged with assisting the jailbreak after he allegedly admitted to law enforcement that he turned off the plumbing connected to the stall at the prisoners' request. Landry similarly blamed progressives for the jailbreak during a news conference Sunday. 'The irony of the progressive promises that have been made to this city is clear. New Orleans handed the jail keys to those who vowed to keep criminals out of jail, and sadly, today we see that it worked,' he said at a news conference Sunday. 'I hope everyone understands that the video of those prisoners escaping epitomizes a progressive criminal justice system.' New Orleans is in the middle of a municipal election cycle, including for the offices of Orleans Parish sheriff, New Orleans mayor and all seven City Council positions. The city's voters will cast primary ballots Oct. 11, and runoffs will take place Nov. 15 for any races where no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round. Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson (D), who announced Tuesday that she is suspending her reelection campaign, blasted the political rhetoric Sunday while escapees remain at large. 'Political people are making this a political issue,' she told reporters. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
