Trump Scores Big SCOTUS Victory Over Department Of Education
Trump’s attorney in the High Court, the Missourian John Sauer, has set a record for quickly and repeatedly prevailing.Trump’s attorney in the High Court, the Missourian John Sauer, has set a record for quickly and repeatedly prevailing.Exposed: Harvard's elite law journal accused of discriminating against white men
For years, many have suspected that Harvard, America's oldest and most revered educational institution, has artificially tampered with the racial and gender makeup of its student body by denying admission to highly qualified white and Asian applicants in favor of members of other racial groups, even those with less impressive skills, test scores, and resumes.
Those suspicions were confirmed in 2023 when the Supreme Court determined that Harvard College and the University of North Carolina had violated the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Asian-American applicants in their undergraduate admission processes. The decision effectively ended affirmative action admissions at the college level altogether.
Now it appears that the Harvard Law Review, perhaps the most prestigious legal journal in the country, has likewise repeatedly considered race, gender, and other personal characteristics when evaluating submissions and editorial applicants, according to a series of damning reports from the Washington Free Beacon.
'A spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission.'
When President Donald Trump retook office in January, his administration immediately picked up where the courts left off, investigating Harvard for multiple questionable practices, including alleged "race-based discrimination" at Harvard University and the Harvard Law Review.
"Harvard Law Review’s article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission," acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said in a statement.
A flawed system
The Harvard Law Review is technically an independent nonprofit that is separate from the esteemed college, university, and law school, a point often reiterated in news reports about the federal investigations into alleged discrimination. However, Harvard Law Review trades on the vaunted Harvard reputation and operates in a building located on the Harvard campus.
HLR also hires only second- and third-year Harvard Law students to serve as editors. A student-run editorial staff at a journal like HLR means that some of the most accomplished legal scholars in the world humble themselves by submitting their thoughtful legal analysis and argumentation to amateurs for approval.
Few of them succeed.
Because of its prestige, HLR and other journals like it publish just a tiny fraction of the thousands of submissions they receive. Thus, HLR can — and should — subject these submissions to a rigorous vetting process.
'The author cited 20 men by name,' one editor complained, but only '9 women and 1 non-binary scholar.'
Unfortunately, HLR student editors appear more concerned with giving members of "underrepresented groups" a platform than with publishing sound scholarship, even though a recently published HLR fact sheet insists "the Review does not consider race, ethnicity, gender, or any other protected characteristic as a basis for recommending or selecting a piece for publication."
Back on April 25, the Free Beacon revealed that it had read and analyzed internal Harvard Law Review documents that implicated the journal in what reporter Aaron Sibarium described as "pervasive race discrimination."
Sibarium, as they say, brought the receipts. According to his reports and the documents linked to them, HLR has:
- encouraged prospective student editors to provide an expository statement in their applications that "will not be evaluated for quality of writing or editing" but will supposedly provide a "holistic" picture of the ways their personal "attributes or experiences" might enhance their contributions at HLR;
- passed a resolution in 2021 making "the inclusion of qualified editors from underrepresented groups" its "first priority";
- selected minority women almost exclusively since 2018 to write the foreword for its renowned Supreme Court issue; and
- invited authors to provide their race and gender when submitting work for consideration — and included "trans"-identifying and "gender nonconforming" options in the drop-down menu.
RELATED: Why Trump’s war with Harvard hits closer to home than you think
According to a 2023 HLR orientation presentation shared by the Free Beacon — a presentation that lists "diversity, equity, and inclusion" first on a slide about "living our values" — HLR receives about 3,000 submissions, presumably on an annual basis. Articles editors then use what Sibarium called a "race-conscious rubric" to drain that pool of submissions quickly by giving them a basic read and then assigning them a number between 1 and 5, with 1 being the lowest score and 5 being the highest.
Multiple drafts of the screening rubric shared by the Free Beacon highlight "diversity" — including "author diversity" and "author experience" — as a "plus" that might help HLR achieve its "goals" for a particular volume. According to these drafts of the rubric, the "diversity" component is either present and the piece therefore merits a 5 or is not and the piece is not assessed a diversity score at all.
"We should consider expediting this piece" to the next round, the explanation on the draft rubric says of those given a 5 for diversity. Diversity is the only criterium listed on the rubric that prompts readers to consider "expediting" the piece to the next level.
RELATED: Justice Alito issues reminder of what SCOTUS must do, even if unpopular
In its fact sheet, which may have been published after the initial Free Beacon report, HLR claims it "does not expedite the consideration of articles based on an author’s race, ethnicity, gender, or other protected characteristic." The fact sheet indicates HLR mainly expedites articles in cases in which "less-established professors" have received "exploding offers" from other journals.
In 2024, just 412 submissions to the Harvard Law Review made it to the second screening phase, meaning the "race-conscious rubric" and its "diversity" criterium helped editors filter out about 86% of the total submissions the journal received, according to the Free Beacon.
Those few hundred pieces are then given closer scrutiny in what is known as the "Rotopool" phase. At this point, the identity of the author is concealed, and a randomly assigned student editor reads the piece and summarizes and assesses it in a document known as a memo.
Each of the 50 or so pieces that advance to the third phase is then given to an articles editor, who then writes a more detailed memo called an M-Read. These pieces have since been unblinded, so articles editors know the identities of the authors as well as their race and gender.
The submissions that survive an M-Read continue on through at least three more rounds of evaluation before publication. Only 12 to 16 pieces of the original 3,000 ever make it to print, the orientation presentation noted.
RELATED: Kristi Noem’s bombshell letter hits Harvard where it hurts
In more than 500 HLR documents from 2024 and 2025, including memos from different phases, the Free Beacon discovered the following:
- "The author cited 20 men by name," one editor complained, but only "9 women and 1 non-binary scholar."
- "Despite occasional references to the 'cisgendered' and 'heterosexual' power-brokers and power structures that dominate in our contemporary era … the article advances a binaristic conception of gender that does not reflect contemporary understandings of gender diversity," said another editor about an article described as a "feminist analysis of antitrust law." "The DEI values advanced by the piece are limited," the editor also lamented.
- "This author is not from an underrepresented background," yet another editor noted in the "negatives" section of an M-Read memo.
- One editor bemoaned that an author cited mainly "male scholars who do not appear to be from underrepresented groups" but who do represent one of the top 14 law schools in the country, abbreviated throughout the memos as "T14."
- A piece by an Asian-American male scholar from Yale that made it all the way to an M-Read was ultimately cut, with one editor suggesting at a meeting about his submission, "We have too many Yale JDs and not enough Black and Latino/Latina authors," according to the meeting minutes.
While terms referring to whites and males were apparently used often as pejoratives at HLR, other racial and gender identifiers and indicators were considered bonuses in some cases. For instance, one editor made sure to mention that publishing a particular author would provide "the opportunity to elevate a female scholar from a non-T14 school earlier in her career."
One editor effused that an author cited "predominantly Black singers, rappers, and members of Twitter," while another editor — whose personal writing style seems to involve the overuse of exclamation points and the word extremely — gushed that a piece referred to "a Kendrick song in the Conclusion!"
Recommendations on a 2024 HLR spreadsheet regarding who should write the foreword for the Supreme Court issue — an especially selective process that includes members of the Women, Nonbinary, and Trans Committee as well as another diversity committee — revealed just how fixated editors were on so-called "underrepresented groups":
- The candidacy of one female scholar was promoted because she would be "the first hijabi, Muslim woman to write the Foreword."
- Another candidate would be "one of few Latino professors in this space."
- Yet another would be "the first tenured female Asian American law professor in the US."
The Harvard Law Review did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News. HLR previously indicated that the Free Beacon had "selectively" taken some old internal documents out of context.
Legal journal faces legal fallout
Fallout from the revelations in the Harvard Law Review documents has been widespread. Just three days after the initial Free Beacon report was published on April 25, the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services announced a joint Title VI investigation into the alleged use of "race-based criteria ... in lieu of merit-based standards" at both Harvard University and the Harvard Law Review.
The DOJ launched another probe into Harvard for alleged race-based discrimination just a few weeks later. The multifront federal investigations prompted an order for the organizations to retain and preserve their documents.
HLR then apparently retaliated against Daniel Wasserman, a recent HLR editor and Harvard Law School graduate who allegedly leaked the internal documents to the Free Beacon, has since cooperated with the feds in the investigation, and now works in the White House under deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.
The journal reportedly demanded that Wasserman force all parties with whom he allegedly shared the documents to "delete or return" them. Days later, HLR apparently issued Wasserman a "formal reprimand."
"This Formal Reprimand informs you that your actions violate Law Review policies and do not reflect our community expectations," the HLR disciplinary committee wrote on May 22, according to the Free Beacon, which reviewed emails about the matter. "Continued violations may give rise to additional disciplinary proceedings."
Elite institutions like Harvard have been able to get away with 'objectively un-American and discriminatory behaviors' for years because those in power have supported certain forms of race-based discrimination — until Trump.
The reprimand was rescinded just five days later, after allegations that HLR had violated federal protections for whistleblowers. HLR claimed it was not aware at the time it was issued that Wasserman was working with the government.
Former DOJ civil rights division official Jason Torchinsky likened HLR's apparently punitive efforts against Wasserman to witness intimidation.
"What do they call it when a criminal tries to intimidate the witness?" Torchinsky said, according to the Free Beacon. "If you know someone is a witness in a federal investigation, and you try to intimidate them into stopping cooperation with the government, that in itself is its own offense."
Wasserman declined a request for comment from the New York Times.
In response to a request for comment, the Department of Education directed Blaze News to the press release about the investigation. Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment.
RELATED: Blaze News original: Obama, Biden set stage for Trump's derailing of Harvard's gravy train
Alexander "Shabbos" Kestenbaum, who graduated from Harvard with a master's degree in religion in 2024, filed a lawsuit against Harvard in the wake of the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the ensuing anti-Semitism that erupted on campus. The plaintiffs claimed the school allowed anti-Semitism to grow and intensify without consequence, resulting in "antisemitic discrimination and abuse."
Kestenbaum told Blaze News that elite institutions like Harvard have been able to get away with "objectively un-American and discriminatory behaviors" for years because those in power have supported certain forms of race-based discrimination — until Trump.
"Up until President Trump, we never had a government — we certainly never had a White House — who was interested in upholding the law and investigating these universities because in many instances, like with President Biden, they actually agreed with these policies that you should artificially elevate individuals based on their sexual orientation, based on their ethnic makeup, based on their racial identities," he explained.
This group of the "cultural elite," Kestenbaum continued, simply does not believe that anti-white, anti-male, or anti-Jewish discrimination is "wrong."
"They actually believe in what Harvard is doing."
Kestenbaum and other plaintiffs reached an undisclosed settlement with Harvard just a few weeks ago. The university did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Others are likewise incensed by the apparent discrimination scandal at HLR.
Scott Yenor, a political science professor at Boise State University and the senior director of state coalitions at the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life, told Blaze News: "The HLR practices violate the current understanding of the law, though they are the almost inevitable conclusion of the disparate-impact regime that the Trump admin and Sec. of Ed. Linda McMahon are seeking to get out of our so-called elite institutions."
Aaron Sibarium suggested in a statement to Blaze News that racial discrimination is just one problem at HLR and that the journal should reconsider its entire business model.
The documents from the law review don't just reveal a pattern of race-based decision-making. They illustrate the downsides of a system in which publication decisions are made by students who haven’t even passed the bar.
Whether they submit to the Harvard Law Review or some other journal, legal academics do not have the benefit of a jury of their peers. They are at the mercy of second- and third-year law students — many of them to the left of the average law professor — whose judgments of scholarly merit are saturated with ideological influence.
That’s not to say the peer-review process in other disciplines is apolitical. But it may provide a baseline of maturity and expertise that — if the documents from Harvard are any indication — many law students seem to lack.
Editor's note: Matthew Peterson, the editor in chief of Blaze News, is a Washington fellow for the Claremont Institute.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Rand Paul schools Margaret Brennan on Education Department's utility — or lack thereof
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday to start the elimination of the Education Department, then indicated Friday that some of the department's remaining functions would immediately be offloaded onto the Small Business Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services.
These decisions have enraged various radical groups, including the teachers' unions that demanded the devastating closure of schools during the pandemic. The liberal media appears to be reflexively keen to join American Federation of Teachers boss Randi Weingarten and other leftists in defending the moribund institution, CBS News' Margaret Brennan included.
In conversation Sunday with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R), Brennan concern-mongered about the closure of the Education Department, suggesting federal funding for schools in his state might be at risk. The senator questioned the talking head's presumptions, particularly about the value of those federal funds, and proposed a possible innovation, namely that an A-team of better-paid and higher-caliber teachers could teach American students en masse.
Rather than fight for a guarantee of more federal funding, Paul underscored that he would prefer to secure "a guarantee that my kids can read and write and do math."
'Why do two-thirds of the kids not read at proficiency?'
Brennan began by suggesting that federal funds for students in high-poverty Kentucky schools through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act might be threatened by the Education Department's closure.
"[Kentucky has] over 900 schools that have these Title I programs, which are low-income schools who need that federal subsidy to continue to operate. How are schools going to get that money if the president closes the Education Department?" asked Brennan.
Rather than identify a way of retaining such funding, Paul pointed out that this and other streams of federal funding aimed at improving student achievement don't actually appear to helping.
"I think the bigger question if we're sending all this money to Kentucky and all the other states [is] why are our scores abysmal?" said the Republican senator. "Why do two-thirds of the kids not read at proficiency? Why do two-thirds of the kids or more not have math proficiency?"
The Education Data Initiative indicated that as of February, federal, state, and local governments were blowing $857.2 billion on K-12 education annually. This works out to $17,277 per pupil. Federal tax dollars account for 13.6% of public K-12 funding nationwide.
In Kentucky, K-12 schools blow on average $15,337 per pupil, $3,195 of which is apparently from the federal government.
'The number of dollars has gone up exponentially, and our scores have gone the other way.'
According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 31% of fourth-grade students and 30% of eighth-grade students nationwide performed at or above the "NAEP Proficient" level on the reading assessment in 2024.
Last year, only 39% of fourth-grade students and 28% of eighth-grade students were found to be proficient in math.
The 2019 NAEP assessment of fourth- and eighth-grade proficiency levels found that only 35% and 33% made the grade, respectively.
Scores were better in Paul's state but still far from stellar.
In Kentucky, standardized test results indicated last year that 47% of elementary students were proficient in reading, 42% of students were proficient in math, and 34% were proficient in science, reported the Louisville Courier Journal.
The assessment conducted in May found that at the middle school level, 45% of students were proficient in reading, 39% were proficient in math, and 22% were proficient in science. At the high school level, 45% were proficient in reading, 35% in math, and 6% in science.
"It's an utter failure," added Paul.
Brennan countered by intimating the problem might be that the programs receiving oodles of federal cash may have been poorly administered by regional administrators — prompting Paul to question the federal mediation of taxpayer funds intended for education in the first place.
"Look, the number of dollars has gone up exponentially, and our scores have gone the other way. So dollars are not proportional to educational success," said Paul.
"It has always been a position, a very mainstream Republican position, to have control of the schools by the states," said Paul. "Send the money back to the states, or better yet — never take it from the states. About half of our budget in Kentucky goes to education, and that's the same in a lot of states. I think we can handle it much better."
"When I talk to teachers, they chafe at the national mandates on testing they think are not appropriate for their kids," continued the senator. "They think they waste too much time teaching to national testing. The teachers would like more autonomy, and I think the teachers deserve more autonomy."
In addition to suggesting that states are better equipped to handle local education and that national educational mandates interfere with regional education efforts, Paul indicated that radical, outside-the-box thinking might be the way forward. He proposed, for instance, the rollout of online instruction by "an NBA or NFL of teachers — the most extraordinary teachers teach the entire country, if not the entire world."
This proposed A-team of teachers "might teach 10 million kids at a time because it would be presented to the internet with local teachers reinforcing the lessons," said Paul.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump shifts Education Department functions to other federal agencies
President Donald Trump announced Friday that some of the Department of Education's remaining functions would be shifted to the Small Business Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services effective "immediately."
Earlier this month, the Education Department axed over 1,300 workers, which Secretary Linda McMahon called the "first step" toward dismantling the agency. She confirmed that Trump had directed her to shut down the Education Department.
'Those two elements will be taken out of the Department of Education.'
On Thursday, Trump signed an executive order to start the elimination of the Education Department.
He called the move "very historic" and "45 years in the making."
"After 45 years, the United States spends more money on education by far than any other country and spends likewise, by far, more money per pupil, and it's not even close. But yet, we rank near the bottom of the list in terms of success," Trump stated. "Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them."
Trump announced Friday that some of the Education Department's remaining duties would be turned over to other federal agencies.
"I've decided that the SBA, the Small Business Administration headed by Kelly Loeffler, terrific person, will handle all of the student loan portfolio," Trump said.
The Education Department oversees $1.6 trillion in federally backed student loans that will now be transferred under the SBA's authority.
He noted that the federal student loan program was a "pretty complicated deal, and that's coming out of the Department of Education immediately."
"It'll be serviced much better than it has in the past," he added. "It's been a mess."
Trump also revealed that the HHS would handle programs regarding nutrition and students with special needs.
"[Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.], with the Health and Human Services Department, will be handling special needs and all the nutrition programs and everything else," Trump continued. "So I think that will work over very well."
"Those two elements will be taken out of the Department of Education," he added.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration faces a lawsuit filed last week by a group of attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C. The complaint argues that Trump lacks the authority to terminate the ED.
On Thursday, Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) from California, one of the states suing the administration, said his office plans to review Trump's executive action.
"The Trump Administration knows, and even acknowledges, that the President cannot eliminate the U.S. Department of Education without Congressional approval. Yet it continues to do everything it can to destroy the Department's ability to carry out its most vital, congressionally-mandated functions – with the clearly stated 'final mission' of shuttering the Department for good," Bonta stated.
"Last week, we sued the Trump Administration over the mass firing of Department of Education workers – another step in its end goal of dismantling the Department from within. And we will continue to take all necessary legal action to protect the rights of students in California and across the nation," he added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Dept. of Education’s dirty little secret: It DEFIES its own law
As promised, President Trump is gearing up to slash the Department of Education, and as usual, the left is in a full-blown panic. It thrives on bloated bureaucracy.
And when you see the original legislation that created the ED, you’ll understand just how bloated and corrupt the department has become.
Glenn Beck reads from the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979 — the document that set the ED in stone.
“It is the intention of the Congress in the establishment of the Department to protect the rights of state and local governments and public and private educational institutions in the areas of educational policies and administration of programs and to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions over their own educational programs and policies,” Glenn reads from Sec. 103.
“That is not what the DOE is doing,” he says.
Both he and co-host Stu Burguiere agree that while the law itself is pretty sound, the bureaucrats running the department have been doing the opposite of what it says.
“The establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the federal government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the states and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the states,” Glenn continues reading.
“This is not what the Department of Education is at all!” he exclaims, adding that he “wouldn’t necessarily have a problem” if the ED was run like the law says it should be run.
“No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law,” Glenn reads.
If the ED held to the law, “Do you know how many problems would go away?” he asks.
To hear more of the conversation, watch the clip above.
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Linda McMahon vows to uproot disfunction in Education Department: ‘Listen to parents, not politicians’
Linda McMahon delivered a promising vision for America's education during her confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
McMahon, who was nominated by President Donald Trump to head the Department of Education, emphasized the importance of school choice and parental rights as a remedy to the declining education system in America.
'Fund educational freedom, not government-run systems. Listen to parents, not politicians. Build up careers, not college debt. Empower states, not special interests. Invest in teachers, not Washington bureaucrats.'
"November proved that Americans overwhelmingly support the president's vision, and I am ready to enact it," McMahon said. "Education is the issue that determines our national success and prepares American workers to win the future."
"The legacy of our nation's leadership and education is one that every person in this room embraces with pride," McMahon added. "Unfortunately, many Americans today are experiencing a system in decline."
McMahon pointed out that American schoolchildren are underperforming considerably in areas like math and reading. The nominee also addressed the increase in on-campus violence and student suicides.
As an antidote to the educational decline, McMahon prescribed less government intervention and emphasized the importance of empowering students, parents, and teachers rather than the bloated bureaucracy.
"Fund educational freedom, not government-run systems," McMahon said. "Listen to parents, not politicians. Build up careers, not college debt. Empower states, not special interests. Invest in teachers, not Washington bureaucrats."
"Outstanding teachers are tired of political ideology in their curriculum and red tape on their desks," McMahon added. "That's why school choice is a growing movement across the nation. It offers teachers and parents an alternative to classrooms that are micromanaged by Washington, D.C."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Biden-Harris Administration Keeps Breaking The Law To Buy Votes From College Grads
Despite SCOTUS's ruling in Biden v. Nebraska, the White House has proven it won’t let the law get in its way of making taxpayers pay student loans.Education Department Attacks Republicans, Touts Biden’s Agenda in Official Letter
The letter from Miguel Cardona potentially violates the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan political activity by executive branch employees.Biden's final Title IX regulations will bow to gender ideologues' wishes nationwide
The Biden administration has released its final Title IX regulations, effectively establishing "gender identity" as a protected class and forcing around 17,600 school districts, 5,000 post-secondary institutions, and various charter schools, for-profit schools, libraries, and museums across the nation to indulge the reality-defying identifications of the LGBT ideologues in their midst — at the expense of the very cohort the civil rights law was initially intended to help.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 has long prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs or activities.
According to the late Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana, the Democrat who formally introduced Title IX to Congress, the idea behind the legislation was largely to "provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirs — an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want, and to apply those skills with the knowledge that they will have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work."
Whereas in Bayh's day, Americans understood there were only two sexes requiring equal protection, Democrats today have evidently taken the philosophical position that sex is a social construct. The Biden administration — which has proven incapable of defining "woman" — has transmogrified Title IX in an apparent effort to systematically accommodate this misunderstanding.
The new rules announced by the Department of Education Friday clarify that sex discrimination now includes sexual preferences and "gender identity" and further clarify "that sex-based harassment includes harassment on these bases."
The regulations state that a school "must not separate or treat people differently based on sex in a manner that subjects them to more than de minimis harm," stressing that preventing "someone from participating in school (including in sex-separate activities) consistent with their gender identity causes that person more than de minimis harm." Such perceived harm would be grounds for litigation.
The corresponding rule, Section 106.31(a)(2), not only applies to dress and grooming codes but to locker rooms and restrooms as well. Federally funded institutions that refuse to allow men into girls' lavatories could face legal action under the revised scheme.
The Biden administration did not apply this understanding to sex-separate living facilities and sex-segregated sports teams. The DOE did, however, note that it "intends to issue a separate final rule to address Title IX's application to sex-separate athletic teams."
DOE Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement, "These final regulations build on the legacy of Title IX by clarifying that all our nation’s students can access schools that are safe, welcoming, and respect their rights."
Former Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos told the National Review, "I never thought I'd see the day where Title IX would be used to harm women, but sadly, that day has come."
"The Biden Administration's radical rewrite of Title IX guts the half century of protections and opportunities for women and callously replaces them with radical gender theory, as Biden's far-left political base demanded. This regulation is an assault on women and girls," added DeVos.
All-American swim star Riley Gaines, presently suing the National Collegiate Athletics Association for allowing transvestites to invade women's sports and locker rooms, tweeted, "The Biden Admin has just officially abolished Title IX as we knew it. Now, sex = gender identity."
Gaines suggested further the new rewrite means "men can take academic AND athletic scholarships from women"; "men will have FULL access to bathrooms, locker rooms, etc"; "students and faculty MUST compel their speech by requiring the use of preferred pronouns"; and "if the guidelines above are ignored or even questioned, then YOU can be charged with harassment."
Megyn Kelly said, "These regs are a nuclear level attack on women's rights and men's due process rights. JOE BIDEN MUST GO."
DO NOT EVER LET ANY DEMOCRAT TELL YOU THEY CARE ABOUT WOMEN\u2019S RIGHTS EVER AGAIN IF THEY DO NOT STAND UP TO THIS ABOMINATION OF A TITLE IX REVISION.\n These regs are a nuclear level attack on women\u2019s rights and men\u2019s due process rights. JOE BIDEN MUST GO.— (@)
Kelly added in a subsequent post that not only will girls be forced to share locker rooms "with aroused men who get off on posing as women," but a young man "will be stripped of his due process rights if he is accused by anyone on campus of sexual misconduct."
Kelly was referencing the Biden administration's elimination of the sexual assault due process rules put in place by the Trump administration.
Fox News Digital indicated that colleges will no longer have to hold live hearings and allow students to cross-examine one another through representatives.
Kim Shasby Jones, head of the Independent Council on Women's Sports, said, "My heart breaks. Women are facing the ultimate betrayal by the Biden administration. We can't protect, defend, or even advocate for what can't be defined. Women - 51% of the population - zero recognition under federal law. Title IX - now a weapon to remove women's rights."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Biden's EPA finalizes 'strongest ever' emission standards for freight trucks, buses
The Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday that it finalized the "strongest ever greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty vehicles," including freight trucks and buses.
A recent press release from the agency explained that the new restrictions will impact vehicles for model years 2027 through 2032.
"The standards will avoid 1 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions and provide $13 billion in annualized net benefits to society related to public health, the climate, and savings for truck owners and operators. The final standards will also reduce dangerous air pollution, especially for the 72 million people in the United States who live near truck freight routes, bear the burden of higher levels of pollution, and are more likely to be people of color or come from low-income households," the EPA claimed.
According to the agency, the strict standards will still grant trucking companies the "time and flexibility" to comply with the new restrictions.
EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan stated that the emission standards would "significantly cut pollution from the hardest working vehicles on the road."
"Building on our recently finalized rule for light- and medium-duty vehicles, EPA's strong and durable vehicle standards respond to the urgency of the climate crisis by making deep cuts in emissions from the transportation sector," Regan added.
The EPA announced last week the "strongest-ever" vehicle emission standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles for model years 2027 through 2032, Blaze News previously reported. It claimed the clampdown would "avoid more than 7 billion tons of carbon emissions and provide nearly $100 billion of annual net benefits to society, including $13 billion of annual public health benefits due to improved air quality, and $62 billion in reduced annual fuel costs, and maintenance and repair costs for drivers."
Republicans, who are largely opposed to the EPA's new plan, called the standards on passenger vehicles an electric vehicle "mandate."
Regan denied the claims, stating that the emission regulations are "clearly" not an EV mandate because there are "multiple pathways companies can choose to comply."
The American Trucking Association, a national trade group for the trucking industry, slammed the EPA's restrictions as "entirely unachievable given the current state of zero-emission technology, the lack of charging infrastructure & restrictions on the power grid."
"We are fully committed to the road to zero emissions, but the path to get there must be paved with commonsense," the ATA continued in a post on X. "While we are disappointed with today's rule, we will continue to work with EPA to address its shortcomings and advance emission-reduction targets and timelines that are both realistic and durable, and that account for the operational realities of our industry."
In addition to freight trucks, the emission standards will also impact school buses, delivery trucks, garbage trucks, utility trucks, shuttles, ambulances, recreational vehicles, and moving vans.
Under the EPA's new rules, approximately 25% of long-haul freight trucks and 40% of medium-sized trucks could be zero-emission vehicles by 2032.
Todd Spencer, president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers' Association, told the New York Times that the EPA's restrictions will hit small business owners the hardest.
"This administration seems dead set on regulating every local mom-and-pop business out of existence with its flurry of unworkable environmental mandates," Spencer said.
The Department of Energy released an energy grid plan earlier this month to build the infrastructure for electric- and hydrogen-powered long-haul freight trucks. The administration's strategy involves installing charging and refueling stations along 12,000 miles of high-traffic roads over a 16-year period.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com