Latest news with #anti-America
Sky News AU
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Trump orders US to pull out from UNESCO
US President Donald Trump has pulled the US from the UN cultural agency UNESCO. A US spokesperson has cited the UN's anti-America and anti-Israel leanings as the reason for departing. UNESCO confirmed the departure will take effect from December 2026. This will be President Trump's second time withdrawing from UNESCO.
News18
22-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
"Totally Out Of Step" Trump Pulls US Out Of UNESCO, Cites DEI Policies, Pro-Palestine & China Tilt
Last Updated: July 23, 2025, 02:00 IST Crux Videos President Donald Trump is pulling the US out of UNESCO, citing anti-America and anti-Israel leanings, as well as UNESCO's woke agenda, as the reasons. Back in February, Trump had ordered a 90-day review of America's presence in UNESCO. He had demanded that special emphasis be put on investigating any 'anti-Semitism or anti-Israel sentiment within the organization.' Following the review, officials reportedly took issue with UNESCO's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies, and its pro-Palestinian and pro-China bias. n18oc_world n18oc_crux
New York Post
22-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Trump to pull US out of UNESCO over DEI policies, pro-Palestinian, pro-China tilt
WASHINGTON — President Trump is pulling the US out of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), citing its anti-America and anti-Israel leanings as well as its woke agenda, The Post has learned. Trump ordered a 90-day review of America's presence in UNESCO back in February, with special emphasis on probing any 'anti-Semitism or anti-Israel sentiment within the organization.' Upon conducting the review, administration officials took issue with UNESCO's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies as well as its pro-Palestinian and pro-China bias, a White House official told The Post. Advertisement 5 President Trump will pull the US out of UNESCO again due to their anti-Israel and pro-China stances. AFP via Getty Images 'President Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from UNESCO – which supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November,' White House deputy spokesperson Anna Kelly said. 'This President will always put America First and ensure our country's membership in all international organizations aligns with our national interests.' Advertisement Among the faults cited are UNESCO's publication of an 'anti-racism toolkit' in 2023 and their 2024 'Transforming MEN'talities' initiative, the former of which called on member states to adopt 'anti-racist' policies and compete in a 'race to the top' to be the foremost social justice advocate, answering questions about the history of racism in their jurisdictions and then working to ensure equity. 5 A view of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) headquarters on July 10, 2025 in Paris, France. VCG via Getty Images The 'MEN'talities' initiative published a report highlighting the organization's work in India aimed at reshaping how 'men think about gender issues' — especially 'harmful gender norms.' The gender program also published a video game report last year that looked into how games could 'promote gender equality.' Advertisement 'It is not only about controlling the negative impacts, but also relying on video games to address socio-cultural stereotypes and encourage positive, antidiscriminatory behaviors,' Assistant-Director General for the Social and Human Sciences Gabriela Ramos said at the time. 5 Aerial view of the UNESCO headquarters in Paris. VCG via Getty Images Meanwhile, UNESCO used its Executive Board to force through anti-Israel and anti-Jewish actions, including designating Jewish holy sites as 'Palestinian World Heritage' sites, the White House official said. UNESCO frequently uses language stating that Palestine is 'occupied' by Israel and condemns the Jewish state's war on Hamas, without criticizing the terror group's brutal reign over Gaza. Advertisement In addition, Beijing is the second largest funder of UNESCO, with Chinese nationals like deputy director-general Xing Qu in key leadership positions. 5 'This President will always put America First and ensure our country's membership in all international organizations aligns with our national interests,' Anna Kelly said. Gripas Yuri/ABACA/Shutterstock 'China has leveraged its influence over UNESCO to advance global standards that are favorable to Beijing's interests,' the official said. The Chinese Communist Party has particularly been criticized for using its influence in UNESCO to downplay the role of minorities like Uyghur Muslims in the nation's history. Trump initially ordered the US out of UNESCO in 2017, then as now citing anti-Israel bias. 5 Former President Joe Biden ordered the US to rejoin UNESCO in 2023 with the promise of repaying over $600 million in membership dues. VCG via Getty Images The US first withdrew from the UN organization in 1983 under former President Ronald Reagan, saying at the time that the organization 'has extraneously politicized virtually every subject it deals with. It has exhibited hostility toward a free society, especially a free market and a free press, and it has demonstrated unrestrained budgetary expansion.' Advertisement Former President Joe Biden made the US rejoin UNESCO in 2023, arguing an American presence was needed to counter China's growing hold on the organization. The Biden administration also vowed to pay back more than $600 million in dues incurred since the US stopped contributing in 2011 due to the inclusion of Palestine as a member.
NZ Herald
22-07-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Harvard slams Trump administration funding cuts in pivotal court hearing
Steven P. Lehotsky, who argued for Harvard, called the Government's actions a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment, touching a 'constitutional third rail' that threatened the academic freedom of private universities. The attorney for the Government cast the case as a fight over billions of dollars. 'Harvard is here because it wants the money,' said Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer. But the Government can choke the flow of taxpayer dollars to institutions that show a 'deliberate indifference to anti-Semitism', he said. President Donald Trump reacted to the hearing on Monday afternoon with a post on social media about the judge. 'She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling.' He called Harvard 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America'. 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN. Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard,' he said. Spokespeople for Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday about the President's remarks. Peter McDonough, vice-president and general counsel at the American Council on Education, said all of higher education could be impacted by the case. 'And I don't think it is too dramatic to say that Americans and the constitutional protections that they value are in court,' he said. 'Freedom of speech is on trial, due process is on trial,' he said, with the executive branch of the Government essentially charged with having violated those rights. The administration has engaged in intense efforts to force changes in higher education, which it has said has been captured by leftist ideology and has not done enough to combat antisemitism in the wake of protests at some colleges over the Israel-Gaza war. Its biggest target has been Harvard. The administration announced earlier this year that it would review nearly US$9 billion ($15b) in federal funding to the school and its affiliates, including local hospitals whose physicians teach at Harvard Medical School. In April, a letter from a federal anti-Semitism task force, alluding to civil rights law, demanded that the university upend its governance, hiring, student discipline and admissions, and submit to years-long federal oversight over multiple aspects of its operations. Harvard has been the Trump administration's biggest target. Photo / Allison Robbert, The Washington Post Harvard refused to comply. Hours later, the administration announced it would freeze more than US$2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard. It has also launched multiple investigations into the Ivy League institution's operations, threatened to revoke the school's tax-exempt status and moved to block its ability to enrol international students. Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging the funding cuts, and later filed another to counter the administration's effort to block international students and scholars from Harvard. In the latter case, Burroughs twice ruled swiftly in Harvard's favour, allowing the university to continue welcoming non-US students while the case proceeds. On Monday, Harvard's lawyers argued that the Government violated the school's First Amendment rights and ignored the requirements of federal civil rights law, and that its actions were unlawfully arbitrary and capricious. Any claim that Harvard is simply interested in getting money back is 'just false', Lehotsky said. 'We're here for our constitutional rights.' He called the Government's actions an end-run around Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and compared it to the scene in Alice in Wonderland in which the queen orders that the sentence comes first then the verdict afterwards, with the funding freeze preceding the investigation required by statute. 'The Government now says Title VI is totally irrelevant,' he said, arguing it had cooked up a post hoc rationale. Harvard had asked the judge to grant a summary judgment, set aside the funding freezes and terminations, and block any similar actions as soon as possible before September 3, after which the university believes the Government will take the position that restoration of the funds is not possible. Velchik, the Justice Department attorney – himself a Harvard alumnus – defended the Government's decisions to slash the university's funding in response to what he said was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism. 'Harvard does not have a monopoly on the truth,' he said. Those same funds would be 'better spent going to HBCUs or community colleges'. The Government cancelled the grants under an obscure regulation that allows it to terminate funding when they no longer align with agency priorities. 'Harvard should have read the fine print,' Velchik said. Although Burroughs pushed both sides to justify their arguments, she appeared sceptical of the administration's rationale for the cuts. She repeatedly pressed the Government on what process it had followed in deciding to terminate a major portion of Harvard's federal funding. 'This is a big stumbling block for me,' she said, even as she acknowledged the Government had argued some of its points well. ('A Harvard education is paying off for you,' she told Velchik.) Burroughs noted that the Government had apparently slashed Harvard's funding without following any established procedure or even examining the steps Harvard itself had taken to combat anti-Semitism. If the administration can base its decision on reasons connected to protected speech, Burroughs said, the consequences for 'constitutional law are staggering'. At one point, Velchik appeared to grow emotional. He spoke about wanting to go to Harvard since he was a child, then seeing the campus 'besieged by protesters' and hearing about Jewish students wearing baseball caps to hide their kippot, a visible sign of their identity. 'It's sick. Federal taxpayers should not support this,' he said. Burroughs also spoke about the case in unusually personal terms. 'I am both Jewish and American,' she said. Harvard itself has acknowledged anti-Semitism as an issue, she said. But 'what is the connection to cutting off funding to Alzheimer's or cancer research?' she asked. 'One could argue it hurts Americans and Jews.' A complaint by Harvard's chapter of the American Association of University Professors against the administration, filed before the university took action, is being heard concurrently with Harvard's case. In its court filings, the Justice Department urged Burroughs to reject Harvard's request for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a motion in which a party in a civil suit asks a judge to decide a case before it goes to trial. To win a summary judgment, the party filing the motion must show there is no genuine dispute over the central facts of the case and they would prevail on the legal merits if the case were to go to trial. Harvard supporters, with crimson-coloured shirts, signs and hats along with American flag pins, crowded around the main entrance of the John Joseph Moakley federal courthouse on Monday afternoon. About 100 alumni, faculty, staff and students rallied in a joint protest with the Crimson Courage alumni group and supporters of the American Association of University Professors union. 'What the federal administration is doing is basically co-opting American values for their own political ends, and we are determined to say this is not what America is about,' said Evelyn J. Kim, a co-chair of the Crimson Courage communications team and a 1995 Harvard graduate. 'America is about the values that allow for Harvard to exist.' Walter Willett, 80, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, biked to the rally to deliver a speech to the group. In May, US$3.6 million of National Institutes of Health grant money that funded Willett's research on breast cancer and women's and men's health was cut, he said. It is critical to push back against the administration, Willett said. 'In this case, our basic freedom – what we're fighting for – is also at stake.' Harvard has taken numerous steps to address anti-Semitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war sparked concerns. Photo / Josh Reynolds, The Washington Post The stakes are high – and not just for Harvard. More than a dozen amicus briefs filed in support of Harvard argue the administration is imperilling academic freedom, the autonomy of institutions of higher education and the decades-long research partnership between universities and the federal government. Eighteen former officials who served in past Democratic and Republican administrations noted in a brief that they were aware of no instances in more than 40 years where federal funds had been terminated under Title VI, the provision of civil rights law that Trump officials have in some cases cited in slashing Harvard's grants. The administration received outside support in a brief filed by the attorneys general of 16 states, led by Iowa. 'There are apparently three constant truths in American life: death, taxes, and Harvard University's discrimination against Jews,' it said, citing Harvard's own internal report on anti-Semitism on campus. Harvard has taken numerous steps to address anti-Semitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war in the 2023-24 academic year sparked concerns from some Jewish and Israeli students, but the administration has repeatedly said the problem persists and must be acted upon forcefully. James McAffrey, 22, a senior and first-generation college student from Oklahoma, co-chairs the Harvard Students for Freedom, a student group that joined the rally on Monday to support the school. He said the administration's actions pose a threat to the nation's wellbeing. 'I think the reality is it's time for us to root out the evils of anti-Americanism in the Trump administration,' he said.
Time of India
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
'Total disaster': Trump slams Obama appointed judge in Harvard case hearing; vows to appeal again if loses
US President Donald Trump launched a attack on a federal judge presiding over a high-stakes legal battle between his administration and Harvard University, accusing her of bias and vowing to appeal in case of an unfavourable ruling. Taking to his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote, 'The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge. She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling. She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country!' He went on to claim, 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America. Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.' Questioning how Judge Allison Burroughs came to oversee the matter, the US President further added, 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN.' He also signalled a broader move to cut off federal support to the Ivy League institution, saying, 'The Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard, much of which had been given without explanation. It is a longtime commitment to Fairness in Funding Education, and the Trump Administration will not stop until there is VICTORY.' During a two-hour hearing on Monday, Judge Burroughs seemed doubtful of the administration's case and suggested that the IVY might prevail in the legal battle against the Trump administration. She didn't give a ruling but questioned the government's arguments as both sides asked for a quick decision, as per the New York Times. In the hearing that took place in a Boston court, Burroughs questioned the justice department's efforts to cut off billions in medical research funding, pressing for explanations on how such funding withdrawal decisions were linked to civil rights of Jewish people. She challenged the rationale behind the move, warning of 'staggering' constitutional implications if the executive branch could penalise a university without proper process. 'What I'm wrestling with is this idea that the executive branch can decide what is discriminatory or racist,' she said, 'these ad hoc decisions without any procedure around ad hoc decisions without any procedure around it.' The battle between the IVY and Trump administration that has lasted almost since his term in office. Harvard sued the Trump administration two months ago, alleging that the government violated its First Amendment rights by conditioning federal funding on the university's compliance with politically driven demands. At the centre of the dispute is whether the administration bypassed established rules in a rush to defund the school. Justice department lawyer Michael Velchik defended the administration's stance, arguing that the government has the authority to determine where taxpayer money goes. But Harvard has rejected claims that it supports discrimination. Steven Lehotsky, representing the university, told the court the administration's actions were a 'blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment.' He also pointed out the government's departure from normal procedures in its attempt to punish Harvard. Judge Burroughs also indicated that the case may hinge not only on constitutional principles but also on whether due process was followed.
