Surprise! These top AI bots are politically left wing



A systems engineer prompted a slew of AI bots to take the Political Compass test online to determine where their answers landed on the political spectrum between the right and the left. To absolutely no one’s surprise, most of the bots fell onto the left side of the map with only one in the center, leaning right. Any guesses which one?

The Political Compass is an exam comprising 62 propositions designed to reveal the political ideology of the person taking the test. Instead of people, though, a systems engineer based in Denmark who goes by the name Zapador had a whole host of AI bots take the test. Among the frontier candidates were ChatGPT by OpenAI, Claude by Anthropic, Gemini by Google, Grok by SpaceXAI, plus many more.

AI platforms with political opinions will have an effect on the conclusions people draw and the opinions they form.

To ensure that the results were as accurate as possible, Zapador had each bot take the test “at least five times” before plotting their average scores on a graph. The results are included below.

AI Political Compass Test Results/aipolcom.net

The numbers don’t lie

As you can see, most of the AI bots fell well within the left libertarian category. In fact, only one AI bot differed significantly. The two gray dots on the center libertarian line and the single dot in the right libertarian section represent three versions of Grok — Grok 4.3 is most right-leaning, Grok 4.5 is next, and Grok 4.6 is closest to the line.

Looking at the other side, Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite with no reasoning was the farthest left out of the mainstream options tested, followed by open-weight models Gemma 4 31B and GPT-OSS 120B.

Needless to say, if you’re looking for an AI bot that takes a balanced-to-right-leaning approach to its responses, Grok’s latest models are the only options on the table.

Unfortunately, when looking at global market share based on website traffic, Grok only accounts for 2.4% of the AI market. ChatGPT sits firmly in the lead at 53.9%, followed by Google Gemini at 27.9% and Anthropic Claude at 9.2%. That means most people use left-leaning AI bots in their daily lives, whether they trust it to gather information, complete tasks, or offer input on projects at work.

RELATED: The next AI race isn't about smarter machines. It's about human experience.

R.Satish Babu/Getty Images

Biased by default

It’s no mystery how things ended this way. Most of the Big AI companies that control today’s leading AI platforms are leftist organizations with leftist employees. For example, Sam Altman made donations to Kamala Harris’ campaign leading up to her presidential run against Donald Trump, while Dario Amodei reportedly made donations to President Joe Biden, among other Democrats.

It’s also not a coincidence that the one right-leaning chatbot, Grok, is owned by a center-to-right-leaning innovator, Elon Musk.

The big question is whether or not AI chatbots’ political bias is intentional or a side effect of the source material — something we may never know for sure. Still, the implications of a left-aligned AI army that spurns right-leaning values could have significant implications on society, especially as AI sinks deeper into the fabric of the modern world.

Consequences of biased AI

A barrage of left-aligned AI platforms could impact people in dramatic, perhaps unexpected ways.

“There is no question that in a society where people increasingly rely on AI for education and information — to tell them who to vote for and what opinions to have on a variety of topics — that AI platforms with political opinions will have an effect on the conclusions people draw and the opinions they form,” Perry Metzger, chairman of Alliance for the Future, told Blaze Media.

This is true in several facets of life — as students increasingly use AI to mold their education, businesses rely on AI to influence their companies, and voters turn to AI for vital information before an election.

Going further, Metzger expressed his concerns around Chinese-made open-source AI models, like DeepSeek and Kimi, moving in as cheap alternatives to American frontier models, both here in the States and in other nations around the world. Unlike American models that still offer information openly, he noted, Chinese models have their own opinions around topics that question the Chinese government, rightful territory, and more, skewing outputs in a way that could further “twist society.”

As for what to do about it? More government isn’t the answer. Any well-intentioned guidance to improve the training data or minimize bias by the Trump administration could be weaponized by the next Democrat president. Stronger governance over AI outputs would also face constitutional hurdles.

Ultimately, the best thing we can do right now, as a society, is to be aware that these models are biased toward the left and to engage with them with this information top of mind.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Not again: British cops arrest another white victim of violence rather than minority assailant suspects



The British public and the world at large have been provided with yet more evidence that the U.K. justice system holds whites — white men in particular — to a different standard than virtually every other group.

Damning footage shows a group of six black individuals hectoring a young white man on Broad Street in Birmingham, England, on June 21.

'The police have lost the benefit of the doubt.'

As the voices grow louder, the individual focus of the mob's rage — a 20-year-old white man who has been identified as Cody Harper — turns his head to address someone to his left, video shows.

Apparently seizing upon the distraction, a man from the mob dressed in a black jacket makes a cowardly attack from the right, knocking Harper to the ground. The victim of this sneak attack attempts to stand up, but a different coward rushes in, this time punching Harper in the back of the head.

Harper attempts once again to regain his footing — only to be tackled against a nearby wall by a female police officer who was apparently disinterested in the attackers now fleeing the scene.

Disoriented after having been thrown to the ground, then sucker-punched, Harper blindly throws a punch in self-defense — but succeeds only in brushing off the officer's cap.

The female officer — who failed to identify herself as police — lunges for the Harper's neck then proceeds to handcuff the victim.

After Harper points out both that "they're tryin' to smack me up" and that he was just trying to "go home," the female officer appears to call him a "dick."

RELATED: UK cop failures, Sikh killer's lies in Henry Nowak case are EVEN WORSE than previously disclosed

"You're under arrest for assault on police," says the female officer, who — with another female police officer — proceeds to march Harper over to a police car. A male cop then shoves Harper into the police cruiser, and more female cops are later gathered in the area, video shows.

A witness off-camera explains to one of the officers: "Someone clotheslined him, then someone hit him from behind, and that's when you went in. All I can say in his defense is he probably thought you were one of the attackers at that moment."

The woman nods comprehendingly and replies, "Right. OK. So someone assaulted him first, right? OK."

After the footage of this incident went viral online, Birmingham Police said in a July 2 statement, "We are aware of footage showing the arrest of a man after a disorder on Broad Street at 1.30am on 21 June. Officers found a group of men fighting. As the incident was dealt with, an officer was punched. One man was arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer."

In addition to characterizing a violent, seemingly unprovoked mob attack on a single individual as a "fight" and claiming their lady officer was in the right, Birmingham Police implored the public not to share video of the incident — just as police in Northern Ireland asked the public last month not to spread video evidence of a beheading attempt, allegedly by a Sudanese asylum-seeker.

"The incident has been reviewed, and we have no concerns over the officer's actions and we are satisfied that they were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances," the police department said in its July 2 statement. "We would ask that footage is not further shared to allow the legal process to take its course."

RELATED: 'Symbol of a country adrift': White French boy 'lynched' by pack of thugs who smiled while filming the murder

British police officers in Birmingham, England. PAUL ELLIS/AFP/Getty Images

The official response by police exacerbated the public outrage over the incident, including from lawmakers.

James McMurdock, a Reform UK member of Parliament, wrote, "I can’t let this go unchallenged. That young man was, in my opinion and based on the video below, the clear victim of an assault. The video shows, for reasons that are entirely beyond my comprehension, the officer steaming directly into the victim."

"The officer made no effort to prevent the attack or apprehend the men who had just administered the violence. What I see in the video is the officer using speed and aggression at the moment of peak danger and confusion against the victim," continued McMurdock. "The victim then controls himself the moment he realises it is now a police officer attacking him and not one of the multiple men who were attacking him a fraction of a second earlier."

McMurdock said that Birmingham Police should drop the charges and put questions to the female officer about "why she went for the victim on the ground and not the attackers!"

Robert Jenrick, another member of Parliament for Reform UK, said that "it’s baffling that he was arrested while the two black men who attacked him weren’t."

In addition to raising concern about "the clear unequal treatment" by the female officer, Jenrick took issue with Birmingham Police's characterization of the attacks as a "fight."

"This wouldn’t be a one off incident either. We saw two-tier policing by Hampshire Police when they came to the scene of Henry Nowak. We saw it for decades across the county with the Grooming Gangs that went unpunished," wrote Jenrick. "The police have lost the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of many. They’ve had enough."

After similar critiques, the Birmingham Police issued a revised statement on July 3, this time expressing interest in an "assault." The revised statement refers to the arrest of a "20-year-old man," presumably Harper, but does not suggest he is the victim of the assault.

'Our commitment to racial equity means producing equality of policing outcomes.'

"We are carrying out an investigation to identify people involved in an assault in Birmingham city centre," said Birmingham Police. "We are aware of footage on social media showing the incident before the man is arrested. Recognising that an assault has taken place, we are now carrying out active enquiries to identify those involved."

Birmingham Police noted further that "although officers were in the area when this assault took place, they were involved in the arrest of another man at the time."

Cody Harper is set to appear at Birmingham magistrates' court on July 23.

This incident took place just weeks after Southampton police released bodycam footage showing their two-tiered approach to the scene of the murder of 18-year-old Henry Nowak.

After fatally stabbing Nowak in an unprovoked attack on Dec. 3, a knife-wielding Sikh named Vickrum Digwa told police that he was the victim of a racist attack.

When police from the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary arrived on the scene, they reflexively adopted Digwa's framing of events and treated Nowak as a racist and a criminal as the teen lay dying — handcuffing him and brushing off his repeated complaints about having been stabbed and being unable to breathe.

The officers instead took a sympathetic approach to Digwa, never once handcuffing him even after discovering Nowak's stab wounds.

Officers' approach to Nowak and Harper may be informed, in part, by the anti-racism guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs' Council, which explicitly calls for treating people differently on the basis of race:

Our commitment to racial equity means producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances, and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing harm. It does not mean treating everyone "the same" or being "colour blind" (racial equality).
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The ‘MOST disingenuous piece of reporting’ on latest Trump assassination attempt



When another alleged would-be assassin set his sights on President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the room was full of journalists across the political spectrum.

And despite the threat on Trump’s life, BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales believes their coverage of the event has only continued to prove the media’s bias and hypocrisy.

“You would think that when he was almost assassinated again and they were there to witness it, that maybe they might be able to fairly and accurately cover the story, but no, actually, they can’t,” Gonzales says.

“That’s actually just how bad they are and how evil they are. They just, in true arrogant, narcissistic fashion, they just wanted to make it about them,” she continues, before playing a clip of CBS News’ Weijia Jiang.


“This is a room full of reporters. So, I know you’ve already seen the president’s tweet. My apologies, his post on Truth Social,” Jiang said at the WHCD after the attempted assassination. “And law enforcement has requested that we leave the premises consistent with protocol.”

“I said earlier tonight that journalism is a public service because when there is an emergency, we run to the crisis, not away from it. And on a night when we are thinking about the freedoms in the First Amendment, we must also think about how fragile they are,” she continued.

“I saw all of you reporting, and that’s what we do,” she added.

“‘Our job is so dangerous,’” Gonzales comments, mocking Jiang. “‘It’s all about us. ... Our freedoms are under attack. The right for us to do our jobs is under attack.’”

“Actually, lady, the reason that we are in the position that we are in, where people are after the president as much as they are, is because you guys continue to misrepresent and distort reality and stir up a bunch of little activists who go on to then try to murder Donald Trump,” she continues.

“So, I’m just not having it from you. I’m really not,” she adds, pointing out that just moments before the attempted assassination, a journalist on CNN said that Trump “figuratively” wants “journalism dead.”

However, the coverage only got worse as the week went on.

“This one is going to take the award for the most disingenuous piece of s**t reporting from the most insufferable and arrogant excuse for a news anchor there is: Norah O’Donnell from ‘60 Minutes,’” Gonzales says.

“The so-called manifesto is a stunning thing to read, Mr. President. He appears to reference a motive in it. He writes this quote, ‘Administration officials, they are targets.’ And he also wrote this, ‘I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.’ What’s your reaction to that?” O’Donnell asked Trump in an interview.

“Well, I was waiting for you to read that, because I knew you would. Because you’re horrible people. Horrible people,” Trump responded. “Yeah, he did write that. I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody.”

“You should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I’m not any of those things,” he added.

“We all know what you’re doing,” Gonzales says, referencing O’Donnell. “He knows what you’re doing.”

“Stop embarrassing yourself,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Nobody's rights are safe': DOJ counsel gives Allie Beth Stuckey EXCLUSIVE view of Biden regime's anti-Christian campaign



Christians were told in the first century that the world that hated and persecuted their Savior would similarly hate and persecute them. This divine counsel certainly holds up two millennia later.

'The Biden administration was willing to tolerate Christians up to a point.'

According to the watchdog group Open Doors, over 315 million Christians today face very high or extreme persecution, with thousands murdered yearly over their faith. While the top 10 worst countries for Christians are all in Africa, Asia, and the Indian subcontinent, Christians are also routinely subjected to violent attacks, discrimination, and state suppression in purportedly civilized Western nations.

In America, for instance, hostility toward Christians, their faith, and their institutions came to a head during the Biden administration, which not only turned a blind eye to a rash of anti-Christian attacks but adopted policies that formalized the underlying animus.

Seeking to "end the anti-Christian weaponization of government and unlawful conduct targeting Christians" and rectify the wrongs committed by his predecessor's government, President Donald Trump established the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias last year.

Camille Varone, senior counsel at the Justice Department, gave Allie Beth Stuckey, host of BlazeTV's "Relatable," an exclusive look this week at the culmination of the task force's efforts to date: a damning report detailing both the anti-Christian bias propagated by the federal government during the Biden administration and what the Trump administration has done and is doing to protect Americans' religious liberties.

"The Biden administration used transgenderism as an excuse, as a justification, for discriminating against Christian doctors, medical facilities, against churches, against Catholic schools, specifically," Stuckey said in summary. "And then, of course, there was the targeting of the pro-lifers. Even within the DOJ, there was an attitude of anti-Christian discrimination and the feeling that Christians really didn't count as a protected class, and that manifested itself in very real, illegal prejudice against Christians."

RELATED: The anti-Christian myth of First Amendment 'neutrality'

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

"What we found is that across the board, the Biden administration was willing to tolerate Christians up to a point, and that was when they held their views privately or in the four walls of their churches," Varone told Stuckey.

"When Christians were trying to live out their faith — to see where the Bible, where religious tradition should inform how they actually, you know, went to school, went to work — that's where they ran into policy issues."

Varone — drawing from the findings of the 200-page written report, which is accompanied by over 300 pages of receipts plus thousands of footnotes — highlighted in her conversation with Stuckey numerous anti-Christian governmental abuses and policies advanced under President Joe Biden, who professes to be Catholic, including how Biden's

  • DOJ pursued aggressive prosecutions against nonviolent, pro-life Christian demonstrators under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act while taking a markedly less enthusiastic approach to holding leftists, such as members of Jane's Revenge, responsible for attacks against pregnancy resource centers;
  • Internal Revenue Service apparently targeted churches and Christian organizations whose religious values aligned with conservative political views but did not similarly hound churches where progressive views and Democratic causes were championed;
  • administration, working off a liberal reading of the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, sought to mandate the adoption of its views on sexual preferences and gender ideology; and
  • administration ran roughshod over "sincere religious objections" to the COVID-19 vaccines.
The report also details how Biden's
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission implemented a rule requiring employers — including Christian organizations — to accommodate workers' efforts to abort their unborn children;
  • FBI investigated, surveilled, and stigmatized law-abiding traditional Catholics, in part due to bogus claims from the scandal-plagued Southern Poverty Law Center; and
  • Department of Health and Human Services attempted to bar Christian providers and would-be parents who hold biblical and scientifically grounded views about sex and marriage from the foster-care system.

The task force reached the conclusion that "in its zealous pursuit of its preferred policies and constituents, the Biden administration engaged in anti-Christian bias, seeking to limit Christians’ ability to act in concert with their sincerely held beliefs in their homes, in the workplace, and in the public square. At times, it went still further, leading Christians to reportedly choose between their beliefs and compliance with federal law."

Stuckey asserted that "this should really disturb everyone" regardless of whether they're a Christian.

Varone agreed, reiterating, "What we found here really should disturb everyone who holds religious beliefs because if the government can do that against a majority group, nobody's rights are safe under that kind of system."

"No American should live in fear that the federal government will punish them for their faith," acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, chair of the task force, said in a statement.

"As our report lays out, the Biden administration’s actions devastated the lives of many Christian Americans," continued Blanche. "That devastation ended with President Trump. The Department of Justice will continue to expose bad actors who targeted Christians and work tirelessly to restore religious liberty for all Americans of faith."

Stuckey expressed gratitude that people are being "aware that things like this are happening," in part because it "encourages us to know our constitutional rights, and that can only be a win."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Brazenly Dishonest’ Campaign Slogans Like The Ones Used By Dems To Gerrymander VA Don’t Belong On Ballots

Democrats in Virginia currently have the balance of power in their favor, but ballot language should not be.

Kimmel’s Bromance With Disgraced Eric Swalwell Burns Out, But Pro-Dem Bias Remains

Late-night broadcast television has become a wasteland of one-party rule that is long overdue for regulatory correction.

Trump CIA torpedoes Biden-era CIA assessment accusing white women with traditional values of grooming extremists



CIA Director John Ratcliffe revealed last year that there were "multiple procedural anomalies" in the production of the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment — a document created at former President Barack Obama's urging that served as the cornerstone of the Russia collusion hoax.

Ratcliffe emphasized that ex-CIA Director John Brennan sacrificed "analytical soundness" for "narrative consistency."

The CIA evidently did not limit its prioritization of political agenda over fact to just the one document.

After the President's Intelligence Advisory Board determined that dozens of analytical CIA assessments were similarly infected with political bias, Ratcliffe announced on Friday that he had ordered retractions or substantial revisions of 19 intelligence products.

"The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned," the CIA director said in a statement.

To provide some insight into the extent of the political perversion and suboptimal quality of past CIA products, Ratcliffe published three redacted versions of reports that the agency indicated "exhibit substantial deviations from the President's expectations that CIA's workforce remains independent from a particular audience, agenda, or policy viewpoint."

'We owe it to the American people to correct the record.'

One of the reports, published in October 2021, is titled "Women Advancing White Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist Radicalization and Recruitment."

The report:

  • Concern-mongers about white women who "may not openly advocate violence but amplify white [racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist] narratives regarding their perceptions of racial and ethnic hierarchy, as well as perceived threats from those they see as advocating multiculturalism and globalization";
  • Complains that some white women "have produced blogs, videos, or other online content under the guise of cooking tutorials, which feature discussions about the importance of organic food alongside subtle narratives about racial purity and the defense of white European heritage";
  • Haphazardly blurs the lines between bona fide white supremacists and individuals who've amplified the so-called conspiracy theory that "the white population is decreasing because of increasing immigration and birthrates among non-white groups";
  • Notes that supposed radicals have dared to celebrate "motherhood and homemaking as women's most important responsibility";
  • Leans heavily on left-wing media reports; and
  • Advocates modeling future messaging on the best practices from the Expert Center on Gender and Right-Wing Extremism, part of a leftist German NGO led by anti-white former Stasi collaborator Anetta Kahane.

One of the other redacted reports released last week, an assessment published in July 2020 titled "Worldwide: Pandemic-Related Contraceptive Shortfalls Threaten Economic Development," similarly evinced an unmistakably leftist worldview.

RELATED: Where in the Constitution is ‘the interagency’ anyway?

Photographer: Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images

As its title suggests, the report concern-mongered about the impact of pandemic-era supply chain disruptions on the third world's access to abortions and contraceptives.

It warned that an uptick in babies "in African and other developing countries would perpetuate poverty, strain household budgets, and limit disposable income for consumer goods, including U.S. exports."

The document relied heavily on propaganda from the International Planned Parenthood Federation as well as the Guttmacher Institute, an NGO that advocates expanding abortion practices around the world.

"There is absolutely no room for bias in our work and when we identify instances where analytic rigor has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record," Ratcliffe said. "These actions underscore our commitment to transparency, accountability, and objective intelligence analysis."

CIA Deputy Director Michael Ellis, whose internal review confirmed that the documents "did not meet the high standards the American people expect from the CIA's elite analytic workforce," tweeted, "When we fall short of our standards, we owe it to the American people to correct the record."

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) commended Ratcliffe "for correcting the record and ensuring that the CIA's analysis is free of any political bias," adding, "I've been sending these kind of reports back to the CIA for years and observing that they contain no intelligence."

"Our intelligence agencies have too often missed critical national-security developments to waste time on, for instance, how 'pandemic-related contraceptive shortfalls threaten economic development,'" Cotton continued. "Honestly."

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) noted that Ratcliffe "has done a tone [sic] of work behind the scenes. Well done director!"

Not all were pleased with the attempt to remedy the agency's ideological capture.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) suggested that the retractions and revisions were "part of a broader and deeply troubling pattern in this administration: sidelining career experts, undermining inconvenient intelligence assessments, and allowing political considerations to override professional judgment."

"When political appointees appear to dictate what analysis is valid, it threatens the credibility, reliability, and independence of the Intelligence Community itself," Warner added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

New Research Suggests Americans Revolting Against Left’s Favorite Special Interest

So-called 'toxic ideologies'

Christian students are pushing back — and universities are cracking



As one of the last conservative Christians serving as a tenured philosophy professor at a public university, I’ve had a front-row seat to the intellectual circus that critical theory and intersectionality have unleashed on higher education. I call it out on X and Substack. Professors from ASU’s Barrett Honors College and English Department have attacked me for doing so, calling me a “joke” and a “sloppy thinker.” This is the abuse anyone receives for defending God’s word.

But something new — and encouraging — is happening.

Christian students are speaking up. They are filing complaints. They openly quote Scripture in their assignments. And in this case, the university backed down.

Students are calling it out, too.

Last week at the University of Oklahoma, two instructors were removed for blatant viewpoint discrimination against a Christian student. If even 5% of cases like this see daylight, the DEI structure will start to crack within the academic year. If the polls are right, 97% of faculty identify as left or far left. What we see now — open disdain for Scripture — is not an anomaly. It’s the visible edge of a worldview that has captured entire campuses.

Beneath the surface sits the full intersectional framework, built on one central assumption: Christianity is the axle around which oppression supposedly turns.

The assignment that exposed the bias

The student’s psychology assignment was simple: a 650-word response to a study about gender norms and bullying among middle-schoolers.

She wrote: “Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth.”

She grounded her argument in Genesis, explained God’s creation of male and female, and correctly defined ezer kenegdo as “a helper equal to man.”

In short, she used: Scripture, theology, linguistic analysis, and a historical ethical framework. That is a well-reasoned paper in the humanities. Except when the worldview is Christian.

The instructor’s response?

“Your reaction paper contradicts itself, uses personal ideology over empirical evidence, and is at times offensive.”

And then the tell: “Every major psychological, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric association acknowledges that sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed.”

This is false. No serious biology text claims human sex is nonbinary. Disorders of development exist, but disorders do not replace design.

The deeper problem stood out like a vegan at a Texas barbecue: The Bible does not count as evidence. Even if the rubric justified deductions, dismissing Scripture as “personal ideology” exposed the bias.

Quote Judith Butler or Michel Foucault, and the academy nods solemnly. Quote the Bible, and you lose points.

The modern university’s dogma is simple: The Bible is never admissible. Everything else is.

Christians have known this for decades and quietly self-censored to protect their grades and academic futures. Which raises the question: How did we arrive here?

How we got here

Hostility toward Christianity did not appear overnight. It grew slowly through deliberate gatekeeping. Hiring committees screened out conservatives, shaping departments where 90%-97% of faculty became ideological clones. Administrators learned to view biblical faith as bigotry. DEI offices began to enforce viewpoint discrimination while denying it.

Fair hiring does not produce a 97% monoculture. That is ideological capture.

Christians allowed it because they confused niceness with faithfulness. Niceness — a word that never appears in Scripture — is fear disguised as virtue. It keeps people quiet so they can stay liked.

The left used a strategy straight from Marx, who took it straight from the enemy (“devil,” meaning accuser): Accuse Christians of oppression; rewrite history so the West is defined by its sins, never its virtues; demonize Scripture and its adherents; and weaponize shame to silence dissent.

It worked — for a time. The spell is breaking.

No neutrality

Many Christians assumed universities were neutral. They aren’t. They never were.

Every institution aligns with one of two cities: “the City of God” and “the City of Man.”

The City of Man controls the universities. This is not hyperbole. Romans 1 describes it plainly.

Those who reject God do not become neutral observers. They become evangelists for a rival religion. That rival religion has doctrines:

  • The Bible is oppressive.
  • Christianity is harmful.
  • Gender is unlimited.
  • Identity is self-created.
  • The highest good is “authenticity.”
  • The greatest sin is disagreement.

A new orthodoxy rules the campus, and the Oklahoma student violated it — praise God that she did.

Something has changed

Christian students are not taking the abuse quietly any more. They are speaking up. They are filing complaints. They are quoting Scripture openly in their assignments. And in this case, the university backed down. The instructors were removed.

Even on a left-dominated campus, viewpoint discrimination remains illegal — even if DEI treats it as sacred ritual.

If this continues, the monopoly may begin to break — maybe even by spring break.

RELATED: Why the kids are not all right — and Boomers still pretend nothing’s wrong

Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

What you can do

As someone inside the system, here is my advice.

Follow those speaking publicly. We are few, but we are here — and we are not silent.

Equip your children. They will face hostility. They will be mocked. They will be graded down unless they can respond intelligently. Ask pointed questions on campus tours. Get administrators on record renouncing DEI discrimination — then hold them to it.

Consider alternatives. Trade schools, Christian colleges, apprenticeships, online programs — all viable. Many offer a serious education without forcing students through gender theory with Judith Butler 101. Seek professors who teach the great works with a biblical foundation.

Speak boldly. The gospel is not a whisper. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel,” the Apostle Paul writes in Romans, “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.”

Christian students are rediscovering that courage. It is long past time the rest of us did, too.

Is this the insidious reason Biden's FBI chose 'Arctic Frost' for anti-Trump weaponized investigation?



"Arctic Frost" was an FBI operation greenlit in April 2022 by former Director Christopher Wray and ex-Attorney General Merrick Garland that targeted various individuals supportive of President Donald Trump and/or skeptical of the results of the 2020 election.

The investigation, which was formally assigned to special counsel Jack Smith in November 2022, ultimately resulted in the four-count indictment Smith filed in August 2023 accusing Trump of attempting to disrupt the lawful transfer of power.

It turns out that the partisan nature of the investigation was baked in at the outset — right into its name.

'They were so out of control, and thought they never would get caught.'

Following Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley's (R) publication of documents on Friday showing that Wray, Garland, and former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco approved the opening of Arctic Frost, Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, stated that “what you should know is that they were so out of control, and thought they never would get caught, that they named this investigation after an orange to mock Trump.”

RELATED: Damning new docs reveal who's on Biden admin's 'enemies list,' expose extent of FBI's Arctic Frost

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Arctic frost is the name of a satsuma mandarin orange hybrid. Early in its investigation into Operation Arctic Frost, the Oversight Project revealed that "the corrupt FBI agents who opened this case named it this to mock" Trump.

Many of Trump's detractors — including disgraced former FBI Director James Comey — have in years past suggested that he has an orange pigmentation.

In addition to serving as a nod to fellow Trump antagonists, the alleged naming of the operation as an intended insult to Trump signals that it was, from its very inception, nothing more than a partisan campaign aimed at the ruination of the president and his allies.

Blaze News has reached out to the FBI for comment.

Editor's note: Mike Howell is a contributor at Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!