Latest news with #WomenRule
Politico
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
An Interview With Shannon Bream
Happy last Friday in May! Thanks for reading Women Rule. Hit our lines: ecordover@ and klong@ This week, I sat down with a veteran reporter about her trailblazer status, covering Trump 2.0 and maintaining neutrality in today's political atmosphere. Shannon Bream is FOX News Sunday's first female anchor. She pivoted to TV journalism after starting her career as a lawyer specializing in race discrimination and sexual harassment, joined Fox in 2007 as a Washington D.C.-based correspondent covering the Supreme Court and has helmed FOX News Sunday since 2022. Bream came under fire from Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) last year for asking the representative a question about how her support of President Donald Trump has changed over time, citing a New York Times article. 'It's a disgrace you would quote The New York Times with nameless and faceless people,' Stefanik said, which led to a sharp back and forth between the two. 'For me, it's not an unusual or bold choice to cite The New York Times. I'm giving them an opportunity to clarify or to rebut or to take on that reporting, which was my intention with the congresswoman,' Bream tells Women Rule in an interview. Trump also disparaged Bream last year after she pushed back during an interview with his attorney, Alina Habba, on her assertion that his criminal hush money trial was in some way directed by the Biden White House. 'I never knew Shannon Bream was so 'naive,'' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'I just always feel like it's part of his strategy and I just take it with a grain of salt,' Bream says. 'It feels like part of the job and just sort of the way that the Trump stratosphere — how they operate.' Bream will be moderating a conversation Monday between Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and David McCormick (R-Pa.) at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute in Boston. Women Rule spoke with Bream about covering Trump's second administration, remaining neutral at a network known for its conservative opinions and being a woman in journalism today. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. You aren't afraid to get into tussles with high-profile interviewees on screen, I'm thinking of your exchanges last year with Elise Stefanik and another with Alina Habba. How did you navigate the fallout from those interactions, specifically being called 'naive' by President Trump online? This exchange with Alina, I was just simply pointing out the case that we were at was a state case and that there wasn't a federal component to it. So I didn't see it as a big deal. I feel like any time that you're out there, and you're probing and having an interview with somebody, especially somebody who is specifically aligned with the campaign or a specific administration, there's going to be pushback and there's going to be blowback from people at home or from the president himself who don't agree with how that interview went down. So to me it just felt like part of the job and I didn't see it as as big of an issue as maybe some other folks did. Do you feel like those public attacks on journalists that the president can often engage in are fair? Do you feel like they're dangerous? It's just the way that this president operates. You know, I think back to 2016, 2015 to where he kind of upended the media landscape as it works, going around them, using social media in a really powerful way to leverage the message he was getting out. I just always feel like it's part of his strategy and I just take it with a grain of salt. It feels like part of the job and just sort of the way that the Trump stratosphere — how they operate because social media has been so successful for them. How would you respond to criticism that Fox sometimes chooses not to rely on The New York Times' reporting in other scenarios and maybe delegitimizes their reporting when it doesn't serve their narrative? For me, it's not an unusual or bold choice to cite to The New York Times. I'm giving them an opportunity to clarify or to rebut or to take on that reporting, which was my intention with the congresswoman because she was under contention as a VP shortlister. Some lawmakers will say 'Thank you for bringing that up, that was inaccurate.' You'll see almost every weekend that I'm going to cite The New York Times and many of my news colleagues do the same because some of these outlets are legacy outlets that do deep dive reporting on important issues. And so I say, 'Listen, if they break news, whatever the outlet is, if it's something that is topical and newsworthy, I'm going to cite it and use that as a jumping off point for the questions that we and our viewers may have.' Do you see a shift in the kinds of questions that need to be asked of the current Trump administration compared to his first term? I think that President Trump feels very unencumbered by the fact that he's not going to have to run again. He seems to be having a lot more fun. He seems a lot more confident and relaxed this time around. President Trump is almost an endless access machine. He enjoys engaging and getting in these dust-ups with reporters. For me, I'm leaning a lot more heavily on my legal background as an attorney and covering the Supreme Court because so much of what we're doing, and I think that it is covering just what the Trump administration had planned to do, which was really push the envelope on executive power. They knew these things would immediately wind up in court. So for me, there's much more of an emphasis the second time around on all of the legal stuff. Do you feel a push to soften your questioning, or an increasing hostility toward fair questioning, from the political right today? I don't feel it personally. I have had Republicans who have come on the show that afterwards have expressed some level of frustration at some of what we asked, have that from Democrats too. But what I'm proud of is that everybody we've had on has said, 'I'd come back.' I can't remember having somebody on from either party to say, 'That wasn't a fair interview and I wouldn't give you another chance.' You can't listen too much to the noise because there are critics, we hear from them every day, who would do our jobs differently. I just try to be consistent and fair. Are there any pressures or double standards that you have faced as the first woman anchor of your show that your male counterparts or predecessors haven't? It doesn't feel that way to me at all. To now look around the landscape to see that most of the Sunday shows are helmed by women, it's just sort of a fun moment to be a part of these women who are strong, they're intelligent, we challenge each other, we're competitive, but we're also friends and so it feels like a real blessing to kind of sit in this moment in broadcasting. Have you ever faced skepticism or dismissal from sources or political figures because of your gender? I haven't, but I would say the one thing in Washington is that we're always fighting for sources for access. It's a little different as a woman because so much of D.C. is still very male dominated — when grabbing a drink, having dinner, you always want to make sure that the optics of that are clean or above board or good. I'm not sure that my male coworkers or others in the media think about that in the same way, because most of the time it's a guy grabbing a drink with a guy. I think sometimes there's that extra layer. Maybe it's just me putting it on myself; I want to make sure that it doesn't ever have any tinge or appearance of something that's inappropriate. Do you feel conservative women in journalism face different expectations than progressive women, both from their networks and their audiences? I think what's gotten tricky the last few years is that people who are in journalism, some of them have slipped into advocacy. As a member of our news division, I try to keep it neutral. I think if people are confused about where I am or unsure, then I've done my job as a journalist to be neutral. I think people project a lot onto us because politics is so heated right now and people are very passionate about where they're at. So for me, I think if I'm taking heat from both sides, then good. I want them to not ever be worried about my personal politics. That should never be the story. Do you feel like it's harder at Fox to remain neutral, in that there's an expectation set for you, by your audience, to be loyal to a certain party? I think where that comes in is with our opinion shows which are unabashedly what they are. They've got millions of viewers, very passionate followers, and we're all a family, so, we all work together, but I find that for me in the news division, you do have people that are frustrated if they think you should be advocating one position one way or another. I can come out of the same show and people say, 'You were too easy on the Republican guests; you were too hard on the Republican guests.' Same thing with Democrats: 'You were too hard on the Democrat guests; you're too easy on the Democrat guests.' I do think that sometimes viewers show up with their own expectations, so my job is just to do my job and not let that noise bother me. I do think that people are very frustrated. Some of them want to hear the most extreme voices, the most extreme attack interviews, the most contentious stuff. But I do think there's a big section of the country who says, 'I just want my questions answered.' Do you feel like bipartisanship truly does have a place right now, on the Hill? I don't think it's irreparably broken. It may be on some kind of life support and some issues and with some policies, but Washington always finds a way to make it work. I think our system is so unique and there are checks and balances within the different branches. The judicial branch is getting an overtime workout right now. But I do find that people feel the court system and the branches are functioning in the way that the Constitution intended them to, which was under duress. Are you ever frustrated by the super opinionated things that come out of your network and how that might make people frustrated with you as you endeavor to be neutral? I don't feel that way at all because I do see us having very different silos and very different assignments. That you look to other networks and you can very clearly tell the opinion shows and the opinion hosts, and they're going to differ from their news division too. POLITICO Special Report Judge Jeanine Finds Herself in the Spotlight — Again by Giselle Ruhiyyih Ewing for POLITICO: 'Former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, D.C.'s new interim U.S. attorney, is leaping from one spotlight directly into another as she helms the investigation into the capital's most high-profile crime in years. Pirro — who President Donald Trump hosted for a ceremonial swearing in at the Oval Office Wednesday — made an abrupt departure from her longtime position at Fox earlier this month after Trump tapped her for the position in Washington, making her the latest in a string of former personalities at the president's favorite network to join the administration.' Fired Copyright Chief Loses First Round in Lawsuit Over Trump Powers by Katherine Tully-McManus for POLITICO: 'Shira Perlmutter was fired as register of copyrights earlier this month, an office housed inside the Library of Congress. In a suit filed in Washington's federal court last week, she alleged that Trump and his subordinates overstepped in both naming a new Librarian of Congress — the only official, she claims, that can hire and fire a copyright chief. Perlmutter asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order keeping Trump's appointees out of the Library of Congress and keeping her on the job, but U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the motion from the bench in a hearing Wednesday.' The CDC Is No Longer Recommending Covid Vaccines for Healthy Children, Pregnant Women by Sophie Gardner and David Lim for POLITICO: 'The CDC is no longer recommending that 'healthy' children and pregnant women get vaccinated against Covid-19, according to a post on X from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The CDC had recommended the vaccine to everyone at least six months old, including during pregnancy. Kennedy has long said that Covid vaccines are not safe, despite the medical consensus. The top U.S. vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad, has said that the cost-benefit of the shots doesn't make sense for some groups, such as young men, who face an elevated risk of heart inflammation or myocarditis. POLITICO first reported last month that Kennedy was considering pulling the CDC's Covid-19 vaccine recommendation for children.' Number of the Week Read more here. MUST READS Noor Abdalla's First Month of Motherhood by Angelina Chapin, The Cut for New York Magazine: 'It's late May, and her baby, Deen, is napping soundly in the other room. 'Sometimes he'll have the little crying fits where you don't know what's wrong. I've changed his diaper, I've burped him, I've fed him. What's going on?' Such are the challenges faced by every first-time parent, and Abdalla's living room has all the typical trappings of postpartum life: a diaper bag on top of a green pouf, a WubbaNub pacifier attached to a stuffed giraffe, a bassinet against the wall. But among the baby gear is a poster that says FREE MAHMOUD KHALIL and a Mother's Day bouquet with wilting white roses that her husband sent through a friend. Instead of celebrating the day with his wife and new son, Khalil has been held in an immigration-detention center nearly 1,500 miles from his family since Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested him on March 8. 'To the most beautiful mother in the world,' the card reads. 'I love you and will see you soon.'' Sexual Exploitation and Domestic Violence Soared After Lahaina Wildfire, Report Finds by Nina Lakhani for The Guardian: 'Sexual exploitation and domestic violence soared after the catastrophic Lahaina wildfire in 2023, with pre-existing gender inequalities exposed and exacerbated by the post-disaster response, new research has found. In the weeks and months after the deadliest American fire in a century, one in six female fire survivors surveyed felt forced to engage in sexual acts in exchange for basic necessities such as food, clothing and housing. Immigrant women and other limited English speakers felt particularly isolated and unsafe in emergency shelters, with some sleeping with their children in vehicles — or engaging in 'survival sex' for a safer place to stay, according to the new report by Tagnawa, a Filipino feminist disaster response organization in Hawaii, shared exclusively with the Guardian.' Missouri Supreme Court Effectively Blocks Access to Abortion, at Least for Now by Katie Benner for The New York Times: 'The Missouri Supreme Court has temporarily blocked access to abortion in the state, despite a new amendment to the State Constitution, passed by voters, that ensures such access. The court's ruling on Tuesday lifted an injunction by a circuit judge who had found that some state laws regulating abortion access could undermine the new amendment. After the Supreme Court's decision, Planned Parenthood, the state's last abortion provider, temporarily halted abortion procedures in the state.' Quote of the Week Read more here. on the move Molly Fromm is now vice president and general counsel at the Nickles Group. She previously was general counsel and parliamentarian for House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.). (h/t POLITICO Playbook) Emmy Ruiz is joining Somos Votantes as senior adviser. She previously was senior adviser to the president and director of the office of political strategy and outreach in the Biden White House. (h/t POLITICO Influence) Linda Goler Blount is now president and CEO of Community Catalyst. She previously was president and CEO of the Black Women's Health Imperative. (h/t POLITICO Playbook)
Politico
23-05-2025
- Health
- Politico
A Pregnant Woman Is Being Kept on Life Support
Good morning! Thanks for reading Women Rule. Hit our lines: ecordover@ and klong@ This week, we dive into a very difficult and sensitive story out of Georgia. A Georgia woman has been kept on life support for more than 90 days — a decision her family says was made without their consent — because she was nine weeks pregnant at the time doctors declared her brain dead. Adriana Smith's family says Emory University Hospital in Atlanta insists the state's fetal heartbeat law, part of the Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act, legally requires them to keep her on life support until her fetus can be delivered. (The law bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which usually happens after six weeks during pregnancy.) In interviews, Smith's family has lambasted the hospital for leaving them out of the medical decision-making, called the situation a 'nightmare no one should have to endure.' They say they're also worried about the health of the fetus, who they say is experiencing health complications already. According to medical ethicists, Smith's case is unprecedented — and medically risky. It's highly unusual for a pregnant person to be kept on life support. And in those rare instances where it does happen, it's usually when the pregnancy is assumed to be viable — past the 20 week mark, according to Dr. Arthur Caplan, founding head of the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Smith's story has provoked controversy around the ethics of strict abortion laws. Abortion rights activists argue her case exemplifies some of the consequences of criminalizing reproductive care. In February, Smith, a 30-year-old registered nurse at Emory University Hospital, sought treatment at Northside Hospital for debilitating headaches. She was sent home with medication and without any testing, according to her mother, April Newkirk, who told the story to WXIA TV of Atlanta. The next morning, after her boyfriend found her gasping for air, she was rushed to one of the hospitals in the Emory University Hospital system. Shortly after she was admitted, doctors pronounced Smith, the mother of a 7-year-old boy, brain dead. In a statement to NBC News, Emory University Hospital defended its decision to keep Smith on life support. 'Emory Healthcare uses consensus from clinical experts, medical literature, and legal guidance to support our providers as they make individualized treatment recommendations in compliance with Georgia's abortion laws and all other applicable laws,' the statement said. Women Rule reached out to Smith's family for comment, but they did not respond in time for publication. In the political arena, Smith's story is sparking fierce debate along partisan lines. Democratic lawmakers are condemning the decision to keep Smith on life support. Republicans are praising the hospital's life-saving efforts. 'These decisions need to be made by family and medical professionals, not politicians,' Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) wrote on X. 'That any law in Georgia could be interpreted to require a brain-dead woman's body to be artificially maintained as a fetal incubator is not only medically unsound — it is inhumane,' Democratic state Sen. Nabilah Islam Parkes said. State Sen. Ed Setzler, a Republican who sponsored the LIFE Act, said in a statement: 'I'm thankful that the hospital recognizes the full value of the small human life living inside of this regrettably dying young mother.' Brain death is considered legal death in all 50 states, thanks to the Uniform Determination of Death Act, which has served as a model statute for more than 40 years. Caplan tells Women Rule that Smith's case defies medical ethics on several accounts, including a patient's right to refuse care and a family's right to refuse participation in a medical experiment. 'You don't have any right to force experimentation on somebody,' Caplan says. 'We don't understand whether the life support that we're using is sufficient to keep the baby adequately nourished, adequately temperature controlled, in an adequate environment to develop, at least without severe disability or just dying at birth.' Michelle Oberman, lawyer and legal scholar at the Santa Clara University School of Law focusing on the intersection of sex, pregnancy, motherhood and criminal law, says Smith's situation raises questions about the financial responsibilities for Smith's family. The costs for keeping Smith on life support — and caring for her fetus if it survives delivery could cost upwards of $800,000. The financial costs 'look to be devastating, and they look to be borne by a family that didn't want this at all. This is unwanted treatment. It's a battery for a dead person,' she tells Women Rule. Health insurance does not generally cover care after death if the patient is declared to be in a vegetative state with no potential for recovery. 'Dead bodies are not a property of the state to be used to maximize life,' Oberman says. Islam Parkes sent a letter to Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr on May 16 demanding clarity on whether the LIFE Act requires continued life support in these situations. 'There is nothing in the LIFE Act that requires medical professionals to keep a woman on life support after brain death,' Carr's office responded in a statement. 'Removing life support is not an action 'with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy.'' Democratic Georgia lawmakers are pushing to repeal the abortion law. In the meantime, public hearings, debates and court challenges are likely. POLITICO Special Report Ex-Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms Enters Georgia Governor Race in Test for Dems by Brakkton Booker for POLITICO: 'Former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is launching her campaign to be governor of Georgia in a race that may provide an early sign of whether Democrats have momentum in a pivotal swing state. Bottoms, who served in the Biden administration after she surprised voters by forgoing a second term as mayor, says in a campaign video to be released Tuesday that the reelection of President Donald Trump is a driving force in her campaign.' California Senator Produces Drug Panel Taken Day After DUI Citation by Nicole Norman for POLITICO: 'State Sen. Sabrina Cervantes on Wednesday released the negative results of a urine test done the day after she was cited for driving under the influence came back clean, offering them up as proof that she had been wrongly accused. 'The accusation that I was driving under the influence is utterly false,' Cervantes said in a statement to POLITICO. 'I take this matter seriously and in the interest of transparency, I am releasing my hospital exam report and hospital lab results.'' Mace, Alleging Assault, Shares Nude Photo of Herself During House Hearing She Says Was Taken Without Her Consent by Amanda Friedman for POLITICO: 'Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) shared a photo of what she described as a 'naked silhouette' of herself that she said was taken without her consent while renewing allegations of sexual abuse against multiple men, including her ex-fiance, during a House subcommittee hearing Tuesday. The four men Mace has accused of crimes have repeatedly denied wrongdoing. The South Carolina Republican framed her testimony as part of a broader effort to advocate for stronger legal protections for victims of nonconsensual recording and sexual misconduct.' Number of the Week Read more here. MUST READS Chicago Police Dismissed a Recruit's Claims That a Colleague Sexually Assaulted Her. Then He Was Accused Again and Again by María Inés Zamudio and Dana Brozost-Kelleher, Invisible Institute for ProPublica: 'Alexus Byrd-Maxey had just finished her second month at the Chicago police academy, well on her way to fulfilling her childhood dream. The South Side native wanted to become a detective so she could bring closure to families who have lost loved ones to homicides by arresting those responsible. Byrd-Maxey, then 26, was proud of herself for making it this far: completing college classes, applying to the academy multiple times, passing a background check and physical tests. She was delighted to be part of the academy despite the sacrifices it required, including leaving her toddler son most mornings at 5 a.m. and having her mom spend thousands to buy her new uniforms and equipment.' The Palm Springs Fertility Clinic Bombing Cut Off Critical Power to Incubating Embryos. A Firefighter's Risky Plan Averted Tragedy by Elizabeth Wolfe and Norma Galeana for CNN: 'Through a fortuitous turn of events, the usually bustling American Reproductive Center was completely empty when a car exploded outside the clinic Saturday, blowing a gaping hole in the side of the building and severing the power supply of the lab where thousands of embryos and other specimens are stored. For miles around the blast zone, Coachella Valley families held the babies and toddlers conceived at ARC. Alongside hopeful would-be parents, they worried for the immediate fate of their remaining embryos in the clinic, and for the long-term safety of the reproductive center, which authorities believe was targeted in an act of domestic terrorism.' The Real Story Isn't Young Men Supposedly Voting Far Right. It's What Young Women Are Up To by Cas Mudde for The Guardian: ''The boys are alt-right.' This seems to be the new consensus on far-right politics propagated in numerous articles and podcasts. But the media's obsessive focus on the young men allegedly fueling the rise of the far right isn't just empirically flawed — it misses a much more significant shift in public opinion among young people. While many surveys show a large gender gap in support of far-right parties and policies, it is young women who stand out as the more politically interesting demographic, as they are turning in ever greater numbers towards the left.' Quote of the Week Read more here. on the move New Heights Communications has hired Manisha Sunil as a director. Sunil brings experience from her previous role as Director of Communications at Groundwork Collaborative, and is an alum of West End Strategy Team. Jessica Lovejoy is now chief of staff at GovAct. She most recently was senior vice president of campaigns at 50+1 Strategies. (h/t POLITICO Influence) Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions has added Whitney Folluo as director of media relations, Alyssa Jones as a communications manager and Shannon O'Hare as a government relations and policy manager. Folluo was most recently at the U.S. Institute of Peace, Jones was most recently with the Western Caucus Foundation and O'Hare was most recently at the Wilson Center. (h/t POLITICO Influence)
Politico
16-05-2025
- Business
- Politico
Will a Woman Finally Lead Global Tourism at the UN?
Hey all! Thanks for reading Women Rule. Feel free to reach out with any tips, questions, concerns: klong@ and ecordover@ This week, I spoke with business leader Shaikha Nasser Al Nowais on her campaign to serve as the first secretary-general of the United Nations Tourism Department. Shaikha Nasser Al Nowais is running to make history as the first woman secretary-general of the United Nations Tourism Department, and is making economic empowerment and opportunities for women a core component of her campaign. Nominated by the United Arab Emirates, Al Nowais is an Emirati business leader with decades of experience in the tourism and hospitality industry. She currently serves as vice president of owner relationship management at Rotana, an Abu Dhabi-based hotel management corporation. Her nomination alone is historic, as she is the first Emirati woman to be backed for the role. Nominees for the secretary-general position include candidates from Ghana, Tunisia and Greece. One other woman, Gloria Guevara of Mexico, is also vying for the title. The current secretary-general, Zurab Pololikashvili, nominated by Georgia, was seeking a third term, but withdrew from the race this week after the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs rescinded their support and endorsed Al Nowais. U.N. Tourism general assemblymembers will hold a nominating ceremony May 30 for the position. If elected, Al Nowais would oversee the agency's efforts to encourage access to sustainable, responsible tourism globally. Women Rule spoke with Al Nowais on her nomination, the changing role of women in UAE business sectors — and how she aims to improve economic opportunities for women in the tourism and hospitality industry. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. I'd like to hear about one of the key components of your campaign, which is economic empowerment for women in the industry. I've been working in the tourism industry, the hotel industry particularly, for the last two decades. And as you know there's not a lot of women represented in that sector. We see numbers grow, but not as much as we want to see. It's a people-oriented type of mental industry, and it takes a lot of time and effort. You need to be on standby all the time, and it's very demanding, but they don't know the fact that when women are there, they actually do make a difference. So we started with 10 percent and today [women] represent around 28 or 30 percent of the workforce. Particularly in Saudi [Arabia], most of the nationals that join the workforce in Saudi are women, and particularly in hospitality, because they want to make a difference. They want to be part of this industry which makes a huge impact on the economy. What I would like to emphasize within this role is to make people aware of the industry, the results the industry is driving and making it more accessible for women. We want them to feel comfortable in this environment, especially an environment which is more male-dominated. Every two, three months we have a working group, where we bring all the women together. It's an open space, and it allows us to create a dialogue and know exactly what is frustrating them, the things that they would like to address, and how we can solve them. We either come up with quick wins, quick solutions, or we can at least tell them that this is something that we will think of and ensure that it gets implemented, whether it's related to nursing, whether it's related to women that have kids. How can we create the right working environment for them to be able to work comfortably knowing that their kids are in a safe place? So it's a balance. We need to make sure that there's a right balance between the work environment and between families. And this is something that we have tried and measured. What are the biggest challenges for women in business in the UAE? And more broadly, do you see any parallels in those challenges for women in the U.S.? In the UAE, we're very lucky with our leadership. They were able to see that women are able to drive results, and that's why women in the UAE are able to get to where they are. You have ministers, you have doctors, you have engineers, you have captains. And this is the reason that our leadership is trying to push women to the forefront. Every publicly-listed company in the UAE has to have at least one board member who is a woman, because they want to give the opportunities to women out there, and particularly those who have the right experience and expertise. I think the U.S. has also advanced. Many nations, not only the U.S., need more time to get to higher percentages of women in the workplace, but they're getting there. You have a significant amount of experience as a business leader in the tourism and hospitality sector in the UAE. How has gender equity always been a priority in your work? Yes, I believe we need to give people, whether women or men, the right opportunities. We have to know because it's very important in this industry to be able to determine and identify the right talent, and talent is key for us to survive and to be successful. If elected, you would be the first woman to serve as the Secretary-General of the U.N. tourism department. What would that mean for you? I'll be, obviously, very proud. I'd be honored. And it's a responsibility. I'd have to execute it and put measurable elements that would allow me to prove that my promises are accomplished. It's not just promises, but delivering. So there's a lot of things I would like to do, and one of the things I would like to focus on is women. Why is it important for you to prioritize gender equity and, more broadly, social equity in the tourism and hospitality sector? Going back to the human and emotional connection, women can be more emotionally connected. If you are emotionally connected to people, you will be able to serve them better. I have a story. Everyone has a story, but it all depends on how you relay that story, how you communicate it, how you document it, because those stories will resonate in people, and they will be able to remember, remember you with those stories, and be able to relate to those stories. And you know, give better. The World Travel and Tourism Council reported that the U.S. is set to lose roughly $12.5 billion in international travel spending, citing Trump administration policies as a deterrence for foreign visitors. I'm curious to get your thoughts on that. Tourism is a connector. It bridges between cultures and bridges between people, and it should always be focused on being a good force so people will continue to want to travel. They will continue to want to explore different destinations no matter what comes up. Tourism should remain focused as being a neutral medium and connecting between cultures and people and economies as well. POLITICO Special Report AOC's 3 a.m. Comment Over Miscarriages Sparks Fiery Exchange with GOP Male Counterparts by Ben Leonard for POLITICO: 'As the House Energy and Commerce panel entered the early morning hours Wednesday of its marathon megabill markup, Texas GOP Rep. Randy Weber told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to address members of the committee — not the camera. Around 3 a.m., the prominent New York Democrat attempted to address a question to committee Republicans about what the consequences might be for patients having miscarriages under the GOP's proposed work requirements to qualify for Medicaid. The broader legislation would exempt pregnant patients and those undergoing postpartum care from having to work as a condition of getting Medicaid services, but does not explicitly mention whether people experiencing a loss of pregnancy would need to be actively employed during that time, too.' Justice Department Must Reinstate ABA Domestic Violence Grants, Judge Says by Daniel Barnes for POLITICO: 'The Justice Department unconstitutionally retaliated against the American Bar Association by terminating grants for a program aimed at helping victims of domestic violence, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. Five grants from DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women to the ABA's Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence totaling $3.2 million must be reinstated and fully paid out, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled.' Democrats Grill Noem on Abrego Garcia and 2 Deported US Children by Ali Bianco for POLITICO: 'Democrats on Wednesday pressed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on what her agency is doing to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran national who was mistakenly sent to El Salvador, as well as the case of two American children who were recently deported by the Trump administration. In a heated House Homeland Security Committee hearing, Noem said DHS is following all federal court orders and that 'everybody has gotten due process' while later testifying that due process does not 'guarantee a hearing.'' Number of the Week Read more here. MUST READS Exclusive: Pentagon Halting Gender-Affirming Healthcare for Transgender Troops, Memo Says by Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali for Reuters: 'The Pentagon is halting gender-affirming healthcare for transgender troops as it moves to implement President Donald Trump's plan to kick them out of the U.S. military, according to a memo seen by Reuters on Monday. The instructions from the Defense Department barred any new hormone treatments as well as any surgical procedures for transgender troops, the memo said.' What Would It Mean to Defend All Abortions? by Amy Littlefield for The Nation: 'Democrats love to avoid it, and Republicans love to lie about it. Even among pro-choice voters, abortions that take place when the fetus looks less like a blob of tissue and more like a baby stir the kind of complex feelings that our political discourse seldom accommodates. As a result, later abortion has never had the widespread support that earlier abortion receives.' Gabbard Fires Leaders of Intelligence Group That Wrote Venezuela Assessment by Warren P. Strobel for The Washington Post: 'Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has fired the top two officials at the National Intelligence Council, weeks after the council wrote an assessment that contradicted President Donald Trump's rationale for invoking the Alien Enemies Act and deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members without due process. Gabbard removed Michael Collins, the acting chair of the National Intelligence Council, as well as his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof, according to a spokesperson for Gabbard's office.' Quote of the Week More on that here. on the move Artealia Gilliard is joining the American Clean Power Association as chief comms officer. She previously was head of environmental and sustainability comms and advocacy at Ford Motor Company. (h/t POLITICO Playbook) Taylor Weeks Armentrout is joining Axiom Space as vice president of government relations. She previously served as a senior adviser in NASA's office of legislative and intergovernmental affairs. (h/t National Security Daily) Shawnda Turner is now regional finance director for the NRSC. She previously was senior fundraising associate at Fundraising Inc. (h/t POLITICO Influence)
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘I'm Heartbroken': A Trans Military Commander Confronts Trump's Ban
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of President Donald Trump, clearing the path for the administration to move forward with its plan to ban transgender people from serving in the military. The plan would also remove current transgender service members as the lower courts continue to debate the legality of the ban. The Supreme Court order is not a final ruling on the issue, but will remain in place as litigation proceeds. Approximately how many service members will be impacted is unclear. Recent figures from the Defense Department reported 4,240 — or 0.2 percent — of about 2 million service members have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Data from previous years by advocacy groups has calculated the number to be much higher, at around 15,000. Among those transgender service members is Commander Emily Shilling, who has served in the Navy for almost two decades. A naval aviator with over 60 combat missions under her belt, she is the lead plaintiff suing the administration to overturn the ban. Shilling told Women Rule that it's her duty not only to follow lawful orders but to challenge those she believes to be unlawful. Trump unveiled the plan in an executive order on inauguration day. The basis for the order, which Trump also enacted during his first term, is the argument that gender dysphoria is incompatible with military service. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a Joe Biden appointee — blocked the move on March 18, but the ruling was subsequently paused by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. A second judge, George W. Bush appointee U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, also blocked the order 10 days later. The Supreme Court ruling was unveiled in a one-page order, with the three liberal judges dissenting. Neither side provided reasoning for their positions given it was an emergency appeal. 'I'm heartbroken,' said Shilling, who is president of SPARTA Pride, a nonprofit advocacy group for transgender service members. Now, Shilling's future, along with many other transgender service members, is riddled with uncertainty. Women Rule spoke with Shilling about the SCOTUS decision, its impacts and her experience serving as a high ranking official in the U.S. Navy. She stressed that her views do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Defense or the Navy. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. You've been fighting against Trump's military ban since he signed the executive order. Now that the SCOTUS decision has been released, how do you feel? My oath, as any military officer would tell you, is to the Constitution of the United States and to follow all lawful orders. And so right now, I'm following lawful orders. I'm being kicked out. I will follow what I'm being told. But it's also my duty to challenge anything that I feel is an unlawful order. And the only way for me to do that is to sue, because I can't go storm off. I have to use the legal system, which is why it's there. So I am performing my duty. I am challenging something that I believe to be an unlawful order, and we'll let the courts decide. We were hoping that the Supreme Court would go to a shadow docket and make a decision that was kind of final. That way we can all just move on with our lives, either we're banned and we can go get our new jobs, figure out where we're going to live, figure out how to pick up the pieces, or we're not banned, and we get to continue to serve and do what we love. Instead, we got kind of a non-answer, and we got the protections that we did have stripped away from us. We had this injunction in place that allowed people to stay deployed, allowed people to continue with their careers. I had individuals who were about to take over command of places, and then the ban happened, and they got pulled off of those things. And that person lost the opportunity to command, and their career is irrevocably damaged. Thousands of people will be kicked out of the military, and then if the lower courts decide 'Oops, that's a mistake,' what are we going to do? Invite them all back? What's your plan these next few months? This fight right now is purely legal. We hope that we will have a more favorable administration or Congress at some point, and then we can step up the advocacy side again, working on public opinion, working on congressional opinion, and hopefully get trans and so many other rights codified into law. So for Emily Shilling, the next few months are going to continue to be this world of uncertainty: Do I have a job? Do I not? Am I going to continue with the Navy? Am I not? It's a hard place to live in. I have the privilege and luck that my partner is, she's an O-5 in the military too. She makes good pay, and we can live on her salary, and she's not at threat of losing our job. But there are a lot of troops who aren't in that situation, and they're going to be hurting like so many Americans are right now. Recent administrations have sort of flip-flopped on this issue. Trump instituted a ban in his first term, which Biden revoked, and now Trump's bringing it back. How do you think that impacts young transgender people's willingness to serve? Well, I feel it's devastating. It's not only devastating to the trans individual, but to all their friends and their allies. Studies have shown that the mass majority of our youth support the LGBT community, and are they going to want to work or serve for an organization that doesn't reflect those values? I got called to the Navy because the motto at the time when I joined was, 'A global force for good,' and I truly believed that, and I'm very proud of the service that I've done. In my entire adult life I've encouraged my kids to go into the military. When I've talked to people, I've told them that they've given me so much, and I'm such a better person for having served. At this moment I can't give that advice [in] good conscience, and I truly hope, and I choose to hope and believe that our military will prevail in the end, and we will show what honor and courage and commitment look like, and we will stay true to our values, and we will be a service worth serving for. Why do you think the Trump administration continues to target transgender military members? I don't want to get ahead of the president, and I don't want to really speak for him, because it's not my place to make any kind of judgment on his character or on his policies; he's my boss. But I think in the grander scheme, there's always some population that is vilified, that has turned into the boogeyman. And the arguments are always the same. They were: 'Oh, it's going to destroy morale in the units. Oh, it's going to cost too much. Oh, it'll be a distraction.' And every single time, we have been shown that it's just not the case. I was in the service when 'don't ask, don't tell' was repealed. I remember sitting on the fantail smoking cigars with my friends and them thinking it was just the end of the world if we let gay people serve in the military, that the military will just disintegrate, and it just isn't the case. We're here over a decade later, and the military is still strong. It's going to be the same thing with trans individuals. It's just going to take time for the world to catch up. You've talked in the past about how transitioning helped you become a better leader and a stronger asset to the military. In 2016 when I was a test pilot, I was at the peak of my career living my dream. And I didn't come out when I could, because I wanted to keep flying, and I didn't want to put my squadron down a person. So I waited. And by the time that I could come out, the ban was put in place the first time. And that left me distracted, it left me angry. It left me unable to connect with individuals because I was only bringing in 60, 70 percent of myself to work. The rest of that energy was dealing with putting a mask on and being somebody I'm not. So when I finally did come out, I'm now showing up to work completely authentic. I'm showing up at 100 percent and I'm able to actually meet people where they are with a little bit of empathy. Before I came out, I was a 36-year-old white man, married, three kids, two cars, a dog, a house, and I didn't think racism existed. I didn't think sexism existed. I didn't see any of them because I never experienced them. And when I got put into one of the most despised groups in the country right now or vilified groups, the transgender community, I'm hearing this bigotry and this transphobia, and it really opened my eyes that maybe I didn't have it all right, and just because I hadn't seen or experienced it myself, maybe I was wrong. I learned so much that I had never seen or been willing to see. I'm able to connect with my people in a way that I've never been able to. And that is true leadership. You've served for almost two decades now. Why was it important for you to serve in the first place? And how has service impacted you? People always say, 'Thank you for your service,' and all I can ever say back is 'No, thank you to the service for letting me serve.' I graduated college, I started working as an engineer, and I wanted some adventure. I wanted to do something that I felt meant something. When we were in Afghanistan, the thing that drove me was women's rights. And I was very proud of what we were doing. I'm heartbroken. I've watched something that I've dedicated so much energy and so much time to and so much love to. It was the honor of a lifetime to serve in the U.S. Navy, and I just hope that they live up to the sacrifice that we've made.
Politico
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
‘I'm Heartbroken': A Trans Military Commander Confronts Trump's Ban
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of President Donald Trump, clearing the path for the administration to move forward with its plan to ban transgender people from serving in the military. The plan would also remove current transgender service members as the lower courts continue to debate the legality of the ban. The Supreme Court order is not a final ruling on the issue, but will remain in place as litigation proceeds. Approximately how many service members will be impacted is unclear. Recent figures from the Defense Department reported 4,240 — or 0.2 percent — of about 2 million service members have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Data from previous years by advocacy groups has calculated the number to be much higher, at around 15,000. Among those transgender service members is Commander Emily Shilling, who has served in the Navy for almost two decades. A naval aviator with over 60 combat missions under her belt, she is the lead plaintiff suing the administration to overturn the ban. Shilling told Women Rule that it's her duty not only to follow lawful orders but to challenge those she believes to be unlawful. Trump unveiled the plan in an executive order on inauguration day. The basis for the order, which Trump also enacted during his first term, is the argument that gender dysphoria is incompatible with military service. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a Joe Biden appointee — blocked the move on March 18, but the ruling was subsequently paused by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. A second judge, George W. Bush appointee U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, also blocked the order 10 days later. The Supreme Court ruling was unveiled in a one-page order, with the three liberal judges dissenting. Neither side provided reasoning for their positions given it was an emergency appeal. 'I'm heartbroken,' said Shilling, who is president of SPARTA Pride, a nonprofit advocacy group for transgender service members. Now, Shilling's future, along with many other transgender service members, is riddled with uncertainty. Women Rule spoke with Shilling about the SCOTUS decision, its impacts and her experience serving as a high ranking official in the U.S. Navy. She stressed that her views do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Defense or the Navy. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. You've been fighting against Trump's military ban since he signed the executive order. Now that the SCOTUS decision has been released, how do you feel? My oath, as any military officer would tell you, is to the Constitution of the United States and to follow all lawful orders. And so right now, I'm following lawful orders. I'm being kicked out. I will follow what I'm being told. But it's also my duty to challenge anything that I feel is an unlawful order. And the only way for me to do that is to sue, because I can't go storm off. I have to use the legal system, which is why it's there. So I am performing my duty. I am challenging something that I believe to be an unlawful order, and we'll let the courts decide. We were hoping that the Supreme Court would go to a shadow docket and make a decision that was kind of final. That way we can all just move on with our lives, either we're banned and we can go get our new jobs, figure out where we're going to live, figure out how to pick up the pieces, or we're not banned, and we get to continue to serve and do what we love. Instead, we got kind of a non-answer, and we got the protections that we did have stripped away from us. We had this injunction in place that allowed people to stay deployed, allowed people to continue with their careers. I had individuals who were about to take over command of places, and then the ban happened, and they got pulled off of those things. And that person lost the opportunity to command, and their career is irrevocably damaged. Thousands of people will be kicked out of the military, and then if the lower courts decide 'Oops, that's a mistake,' what are we going to do? Invite them all back? What's your plan these next few months? This fight right now is purely legal. We hope that we will have a more favorable administration or Congress at some point, and then we can step up the advocacy side again, working on public opinion, working on congressional opinion, and hopefully get trans and so many other rights codified into law. So for Emily Shilling, the next few months are going to continue to be this world of uncertainty: Do I have a job? Do I not? Am I going to continue with the Navy? Am I not? It's a hard place to live in. I have the privilege and luck that my partner is, she's an O-5 in the military too. She makes good pay, and we can live on her salary, and she's not at threat of losing our job. But there are a lot of troops who aren't in that situation, and they're going to be hurting like so many Americans are right now. Recent administrations have sort of flip-flopped on this issue. Trump instituted a ban in his first term, which Biden revoked, and now Trump's bringing it back. How do you think that impacts young transgender people's willingness to serve? Well, I feel it's devastating. It's not only devastating to the trans individual, but to all their friends and their allies. Studies have shown that the mass majority of our youth support the LGBT community, and are they going to want to work or serve for an organization that doesn't reflect those values? I got called to the Navy because the motto at the time when I joined was, 'A global force for good,' and I truly believed that, and I'm very proud of the service that I've done. In my entire adult life I've encouraged my kids to go into the military. When I've talked to people, I've told them that they've given me so much, and I'm such a better person for having served. At this moment I can't give that advice [in] good conscience, and I truly hope, and I choose to hope and believe that our military will prevail in the end, and we will show what honor and courage and commitment look like, and we will stay true to our values, and we will be a service worth serving for. Why do you think the Trump administration continues to target transgender military members? I don't want to get ahead of the president, and I don't want to really speak for him, because it's not my place to make any kind of judgment on his character or on his policies; he's my boss. But I think in the grander scheme, there's always some population that is vilified, that has turned into the boogeyman. And the arguments are always the same. They were: 'Oh, it's going to destroy morale in the units. Oh, it's going to cost too much. Oh, it'll be a distraction.' And every single time, we have been shown that it's just not the case. I was in the service when 'don't ask, don't tell' was repealed. I remember sitting on the fantail smoking cigars with my friends and them thinking it was just the end of the world if we let gay people serve in the military, that the military will just disintegrate, and it just isn't the case. We're here over a decade later, and the military is still strong. It's going to be the same thing with trans individuals. It's just going to take time for the world to catch up. You've talked in the past about how transitioning helped you become a better leader and a stronger asset to the military. In 2016 when I was a test pilot, I was at the peak of my career living my dream. And I didn't come out when I could, because I wanted to keep flying, and I didn't want to put my squadron down a person. So I waited. And by the time that I could come out, the ban was put in place the first time. And that left me distracted, it left me angry. It left me unable to connect with individuals because I was only bringing in 60, 70 percent of myself to work. The rest of that energy was dealing with putting a mask on and being somebody I'm not. So when I finally did come out, I'm now showing up to work completely authentic. I'm showing up at 100 percent and I'm able to actually meet people where they are with a little bit of empathy. Before I came out, I was a 36-year-old white man, married, three kids, two cars, a dog, a house, and I didn't think racism existed. I didn't think sexism existed. I didn't see any of them because I never experienced them. And when I got put into one of the most despised groups in the country right now or vilified groups, the transgender community, I'm hearing this bigotry and this transphobia, and it really opened my eyes that maybe I didn't have it all right, and just because I hadn't seen or experienced it myself, maybe I was wrong. I learned so much that I had never seen or been willing to see. I'm able to connect with my people in a way that I've never been able to. And that is true leadership. You've served for almost two decades now. Why was it important for you to serve in the first place? And how has service impacted you? People always say, 'Thank you for your service,' and all I can ever say back is 'No, thank you to the service for letting me serve.' I graduated college, I started working as an engineer, and I wanted some adventure. I wanted to do something that I felt meant something. When we were in Afghanistan, the thing that drove me was women's rights. And I was very proud of what we were doing. I'm heartbroken. I've watched something that I've dedicated so much energy and so much time to and so much love to. It was the honor of a lifetime to serve in the U.S. Navy, and I just hope that they live up to the sacrifice that we've made.
