Hakeem Jeffries Tells Activist Audience DEI Is Explicitly Written Into Constitution
'We have the high ground on this issue'
Parents, Staff Claim Expensive Nashville Christian Prep School Has Gone ‘Woke’
Lipscomb Academy officials vehemently deny claims that the private school's leadership has injected DEI into the Church of Christ school.Hockey Loss Should Awaken Canada To Its Long-Running Anti-American Decline
Canada lost to the United States on the largest stage and in the one domain in which its superiority felt metaphysically guaranteed.How ‘structural racism’ came to dominate medical research
President Trump's recent push to send federal health care dollars directly to individuals, rather than insurers, reflects a broader demand for transparency and effectiveness in how public funds are used. Government-funded medical research, which forms the foundation of much clinical care, also requires such scrutiny.
In recent years, academic medicine has advanced a nebulous theory of “structural racism” that echoes the 19th century “miasma” theory, which blamed disease on “bad air.” Despite scant evidence, studies attempting to validate this vague framework have multiplied, often funded by largely unaware taxpayers. Refocusing federal research dollars on rigorous science and evidence-based care is essential to correcting this trajectory.
The incentives were clear: Few researchers — early-career or established — would decline funding in an area where the NIH was investing heavily.
How did this happen? The construct of “structural racism” was virtually absent from medical literature until a decade ago. Since then, it has become the default explanation in academic medicine for differences in health outcomes across racial and ethnic groups. Its rise accelerated during the 2020 anti-racism craze, which swept through corporate boardrooms and university administrations while also becoming a core ideological pillar of Black Lives Matter and other political movements.
Academic medicine was no exception. This philosophy quickly gained favor in medical education, academic health centers, elite journals, and professional associations, eventually influencing federal agencies that distribute research funding.
The result: a surge of grant-funded studies built on the premise that racism causes health disparities. Of the nearly 2,300 articles indexed under the term “structural racism” in PubMed, the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s database of leading biomedical and health journals, 95% were published after Jan. 1, 2020. In 2025 alone, PubMed lists 400 such papers — nearly four times the total published before 2020.
This proliferation has been supported by a tsunami of federal taxpayer dollars coming from the National Institutes of Health. From 2020 to 2025, an NIH database search found nearly 750 projects mentioning “structural racism” in their abstracts, totaling almost $533 million in funding. More than 70 of those projects were funded in 2025 at just under $40 million — significantly down from more than 220 projects in 2024 totaling $150 million, but still far above 2020, when only 12 projects received a little over $12 million in the aggregate. Before 2020, the NIH had funded just 10 such projects at a combined cost of $4 million.
Funding patterns across NIH’s 27 Institutes and Centers from 2020 to 2025 make clear that ideology, not medical science, drove much of this growth. The largest investments came from the National Institute on Drug Abuse ($147 million in total funding), National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities ($70 million), and National Institute on Aging ($57 million), each pouring substantial resources into “structural racism” research.
In 2025, for example, NIDA supported a project under the Healthy Brain and Child Development National Consortium that identified “structural racism” as a risk to babies before and after birth, alongside more recognizable factors like maternal health, toxic exposures, and child abuse — thereby conflating an abstract, ill-defined, and ideological social theory with measurable, scientific variables as a threat to child development.
Also in 2025, NIMHD funded the Clinical Research Scholars Training program, a “health-equity focused” initiative created in part due to NIH calls for research on “the impact of structural racism and discrimination on health disparities.” Eligibility for this program was limited to those deemed “underrepresented in biomedical research.” All others need not apply.
RELATED: Who really controls behavioral health care — and why it matters now
And just last year, a NIA-funded project invoked “interrelated systems of structural racism” and “race-specific stress” as risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline, diverting attention and resources away from well-established contributors such as genetics, medical conditions, lifestyle and environmental factors, and core biological mechanisms like amyloid plaques and tau tangles.
Unfortunately, a commitment to science gave way to ideology years ago. Under Francis Collins, the NIH “acknowledged and committed to ending structural racism,” without even defining the concept itself. “Structural racism” was accepted despite its questionable validity and lack of explanatory power.
With vague boundaries and mechanisms difficult to measure, claims of “structural racism” far exceeded the empirical evidence. Nevertheless, the idea was accepted wholesale and used to justify a wave of DEI initiatives, effectively recasting the NIH as an “anti-racist” institution in the Ibram X. Kendi mold. Objective science was no longer sufficient; the agency was expected to take an activist stance.
Proponents embraced this shift, seeing an opportunity to move health research from “individual-level risk, health behavior, and functioning” to “structural level concepts” with “structural racism” named specifically. Research dollars supported tools like the Structural Racism Effect Index to “guide policies and investments to advance health equity.”
The incentives were clear: Few researchers — early-career or established — would decline funding in an area where the NIH was investing heavily, especially when that support could provide a path to publication in top journals.
Yet the instruments used to quantify “structural racism” expose a basic flaw: They don’t measure racism.
The SREI’s nine dimensions, for example, largely track socioeconomic conditions — wealth, income, housing, employment. In practice, a high score identifies communities facing poverty. Even researchers linking SREI scores to hypertension, obesity, smoking, and low physical activity concede they “cannot make causal inferences.”
RELATED: Teaching kids to hate America will have real-world consequences
These health risks may result from poverty, contribute to it, or arise from entirely different causes. Labeling them as products of “structural racism” adds no explanatory value, miscasts economic hardship as race-based, and downplays individual responsibility. It overshadows far more consequential drivers of outcome disparities, including access to care, personal choice, medical comorbidities, and genetics.
Nonetheless, no alternative explanation for health disparities has received anywhere near the same attention in leading medical journals — such as the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, and JAMA — as “structural racism.” This concept has been treated as settled fact, with disparities alone offered as proof: If disparities exist, racism must be the cause. Likewise, many medical organizations have reinforced this view through policies and position papers that embed an anti-racism framework into scientific inquiry.
But change is in the air. The NIH’s recent miasma-like fixation on “structural racism” is finally clearing. Under Director Jay Bhattacharya, the agency is refocusing on its core mission of funding rigorous, evidence-based science rather than ideology-driven research. This shift will direct scarce taxpayer dollars toward work grounded in medical science and its practical application — research that can genuinely improve health rather than feed political currents.
This course correction is timely, and while sustained effort in 2026 will be needed to fully restore the NIH to its rightful mission, taxpayers can take comfort: America’s leading biomedical and medical science research institute will once again prioritize their dollars and their health.
Editor's note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
The West’s forbidden truth: Ethnic cleansing is now official policy
When a dictator in a distant, war-torn nation announces a plan to shrink an ethnic group inside his borders, the Western world erupts. Anchors denounce it. Newspapers detail the plight of the targeted people. Sanctions follow. Diplomats whisper about regime change. The moral verdict arrives quickly, and it arrives correctly: ethnic cleansing.
Yet Western leaders now make a parallel declaration in a cleaner suit. Their countries, they insist, have grown “too white.” The white population must fall. The electorate must change. No denunciations follow. No sanctions arrive. Corporate press treats the project as enlightened policy. A global consensus that once claimed to oppose ethnic cleansing now tolerates it — provided the target is white people in Western nations.
If the West still claims to oppose ethnic cleansing, it should start by opposing it at home and refusing the polite lies that protect it.
French writer Renaud Camus gave us the "Great Replacement.” For years, polite society treated the phrase as radioactive. Say it on television and you became a pariah. Post it online and platforms erased you. That taboo held only as long as people could be bullied into denying what they could see.
The concept’s explanatory power proved stronger than the gatekeepers. Major conservative outlets now discuss replacement openly. YouTube will still attach warnings to videos that mention it, yet the subject refuses to disappear because the policy keeps showing up in schools, boardrooms, and border statistics.
A taboo cannot survive daily evidence.
Quest for permanent power
“Diversity” served as a euphemism for replacement long before anyone had heard of Camus. When a corporation, movie studio, or university says it wants to “increase diversity,” it never means it plans to hire more white, straight men because it has too many trans black women on staff.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion never aimed at demographic proportionality. Leadership announced a preference: more non-white members, fewer white members. Declare a goal of reducing any other demographic, and the public would recognize the project as naked discrimination.
Private institutions practicing anti-white discrimination is bad enough. Governments adopting the same objective is a nightmare. Progressive voices in the United States celebrate the declining share of white Americans and brag that demographic change will lock Democrats into permanent power. They frame replacement as destiny, then use policy to accelerate it, then denounce anyone who notices as a “conspiracy theorist.”
Project Veritas recorded a State Department official admitting that replacement migration functions as a political strategy meant to secure electoral victory. That admission matters less than the broader point: Public and private rhetoric have normalized the idea that a party may change the electorate to entrench itself.
‘Diversity’ invades the countryside
Even if ethnic hatred played no role — and it does — the effort to subvert democratic accountability through mass migration amounts to a political coup. A ruling class that imports a friendlier electorate to escape judgment for its failures announces contempt for the people it claims to serve.
Spain offers a clear example. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and the Socialist Workers’ Party plan amnesty for 500,000 immigrants. Sánchez could not secure parliamentary support for the scheme, so he bypassed Parliament with an amnesty decree. Spain’s population runs about 49 million. Scaled to American size, that’s roughly 3.5 million people granted legal status by executive fiat. Far-left politician Irene Montero went farther, telling a crowd she hoped for “replacement theory” and meant to use new migrant voters to wipe out her political opponents.
The United Kingdom looks worse. Visitors to London joke that the Englishman has become an endangered species in the cities his ancestors built. Officials now want the countryside next. The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs has decided rural England feels “too white” and “too middle class.” It has launched programs to “diversify” protected landscapes and village life.
Officials then discovered an awkward detail: Many Muslim migrants dislike dogs, a staple of country living, and avoid living around them. Planners treat dogs, solitude, and preserved land as “white culture,” then hunt for ways to remake rural life so it attracts Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.
Listen to the admission hiding inside that language. The government intends to make the countryside less like a place where white people live so that fewer white people will live there. It plans to change the character of the land, the habits of the residents, and the public culture, all to engineer a demographic outcome. That is social transformation by state design.
RELATED:The left is at war in Minnesota. America is watching football.
Drop the euphemisms
Diversity, equity, inclusion, decolonization — the euphemisms multiply, but the goal stays constant. Even the Great Replacement argument, while useful, still softens what the policy does. When a party, an institution, or a government targets a group for reduction, removal, or displacement, the correct term is not “diversification.” It’s ethnic cleansing.
This process does not arise from a neutral demographic ebb. Politicians announce it. Activists demand it. Bureaucrats implement it. Corporate managers enforce it. Then they threaten anyone who objects with professional ruin. Fear keeps the system humming, and euphemism keeps the conscience quiet.
Enough. That taboo deserves to die. When politicians, corporate leaders, and professors declare their intention to replace white populations, they deserve the same disgust any advocate of ethnic cleansing would receive in any other context. If the West still claims to oppose ethnic cleansing, it should start by opposing it at home and refusing the polite lies that protect it.
America now looks like a marriage headed for divorce — with no exit
Marriages rarely end over one argument. They fall apart through a long breakdown in communication, a growing inability to resolve disagreements, and the slow realization that two people no longer walk toward the same future.
Healthy marriages don’t require full agreement on every subject. They require compromise on the decisions that shape daily life: money, children, priorities, responsibilities. They also require shared goals.
No tidy divorce court exists for a nation-state. We share one flag, one legal framework, and one public square.
When those goals diverge — and neither side will realign — the relationship becomes unsustainable. The law calls the condition “irreconcilable differences.”
America now lives in that condition.
We remain bound under one nation, one Constitution, and one civic home. But we no longer share a common purpose. We no longer share a common story about what the country is, why it exists, or whether it deserves to endure.
This conflict no longer turns on tax rates or regulatory policy. It turns on the legitimacy and direction of the American experiment itself.
The modern left no longer argues about how to preserve the American system. It treats the system as the problem. Democratic leaders and activists call for “fundamental transformation,” flirt with socialism, and talk about the founding less as a flawed but noble legacy than as a moral failure that demands replacement. In that worldview, America doesn’t need reform. America needs erasure.
The right still believes the country can be repaired and preserved. The left increasingly treats the country as something to dismantle.
This rupture shows up in concrete ways. In 2021, the National Archives placed a “harmful language” warning on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence — the documents that define the nation. That doesn’t signal ordinary partisan dispute. It signals contempt for the country’s moral foundation.
Socialism sits at the center of this divide. It contradicts the American system at its roots. America rests on the premise that rights come from God, not government. Socialism elevates the state over the individual and makes rights conditional on political approval. It centralizes power in the name of enforced equality — “equity.”
RELATED: Americans aren’t arguing any more — we’re speaking different languages
America protects private property as an extension of liberty. It channels ambition into innovation and prosperity. Socialism treats success as a social offense and demands equality of outcome. When people refuse to surrender the fruits of their labor, socialism turns to coercion. Coercion requires centralized authority. Centralized authority punishes dissent.
The pattern repeats: less freedom, greater dependency, and a governing model incompatible with constitutional self-rule.
The irony remains hard to miss. The left calls Donald Trump “Hitler” while cheering figures like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, an avowed socialist. Yet the Nazi Party sold itself as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — a collectivist project built on centralized power and state control.
The same left often excuses Antifa, a movement built on intimidation, street violence, and political enforcement designed to silence opposition. Those tactics don’t belong to liberal democracy. They belong to regimes that fear debate.
Even basic reality has become contested. The left and right can’t agree on something as elemental as what a man or a woman is. The Supreme Court recently showcased the collapse when ACLU attorneys arguing sex-based discrimination refused to define “woman.” When a society refuses to name biological facts that every civilization once treated as obvious, compromise collapses with it.
This crisis goes deeper than polarization. It reaches the level of knowledge itself. The left increasingly treats biology, history, and moral limits as malleable social constructs. The right still believes objective reality binds us all.
These aren’t normal disagreements. They describe incompatible worldviews. And incompatibility carries consequences.
During the COVID era, polls found majorities of Democrats willing to endorse coercive measures against the unvaccinated, including house arrest. Nearly half supported imprisoning people who questioned vaccine efficacy. Those numbers didn’t represent a fringe. They revealed a growing comfort with state force in service of ideological conformity.
After Trump’s 2016 election, many friendships survived political conflict. By 2020, after years of dehumanization — after constant accusations of “Nazism” aimed at ordinary voters — many of those relationships broke. The political battle stopped sounding like disagreement and started sounding like moral extermination.
RELATED: Washington, DC, has become a hostile city-state
In September 2025, someone assassinated Charlie Kirk. Large segments of the left didn’t just rationalize the killing. Many celebrated it.
After Scott Adams died following a long fight with cancer, prominent voices responded with mockery instead of decency. People magazine ran a headline labeling him “disgraced.” Even death became a political verdict.
This is what irreconcilable differences look like at a national scale.
A country cannot endure when one side believes the nation stands as fundamentally good — worthy of preservation and reform — while the other believes it stands as irredeemably evil and must be dismantled. Marriages end when partners stop seeing each other as allies and start treating each other as enemies.
Nations fracture for the same reason.
America cannot solve this the way a couple dissolves a marriage. The Constitution binds us to one civic order. No clean separation awaits. No tidy divorce court exists for a nation-state. We share one flag, one legal framework, and one public square.
When irreconcilable differences exist but separation remains impossible, the danger grows.
Only three paths remain: recommitment to constitutional principles, enforced coexistence through expanding coercion, or escalation into open conflict as dehumanization becomes normal.
Pretending this amounts to another election cycle, another policy dispute, or another cable-news food fight invites catastrophe. A nation cannot survive when its people no longer agree on what it is, why it exists, or whether it deserves to continue.
Unlike a failed marriage, America can’t walk away.
Why Hasn’t Trump’s CDC Ditched This Rule That Punishes Neighborhoods For Being Too White?
Race discrimination is illegal and unconstitutional regardless of 'equitable' motives.DEI hustlers lash out after Trump official solicits discrimination complaints from white men
In his damning Dec. 15 article in Compact magazine titled "The Lost Generation," Los Angeles-based writer Jacob Savage detailed the disenfranchisement of white male Millennials and their systematic exclusion from various industries, especially academia, entertainment, medicine, the news media, and tech.
While America has long been reckoning with the fallout of the DEI war on meritocracy, Savage's viral article — which journalist Matt Taibbi indicated was initially accepted by the Atlantic on the condition that it avoid making the bigger societal point — crystallized for many, with the help of statistics and personal accounts, the extent and true impact of that racist campaign.
'This was an injustice, plain and simple.'
After Vice President JD Vance weighed in on the article and the discrimination discussed therein, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chairwoman Andrea Lucas released a video on social media imploring white men to seek damages — a video that Vance subsequently shared.
"Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws," said Lucas, a Republican critic of DEI and mother of two who was appointed to lead the EEOC by President Donald Trump in January.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to probe and litigate against private companies for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.
Lucas, who previously noted that Savage's article told "a story chock full of unlawful discrimination," said in the video that it was imperative that those keen on taking action contact the EEOC as soon as possible, as "time limits are typically strict for filing a claim."
The EEOC chairwoman also noted in a follow-up message, "You may have waived your right to money, but you still have the right to blow the whistle and participate in the EEOC process — and EEOC can sue on behalf of a class."
— (@)
Lucas has made no secret of her contempt for DEI.
In a May 2024 speech — nearly a year after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard/UNC, banning race-based college admission — Lucas stated:
Race or sex cannot be even a plus factor, a tiebreaker, or a tipping point in the employment context. People sometimes think that race or sex can be part of the equation for an employment decision if race or sex is not the sole factor, the exclusive factor, or the deciding factor. That is dead wrong. If race or sex was all or part of an employer's motivation, that violates federal employment law.
She noted during the Q&A following her remarks that "many employers, by doing lazy, high-level virtue signaling, paint-by-numbers DEI, have mass discrimination."
Proponents of the DEI regime were evidently prickled by Lucas' latest remarks.
David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at the NYU School of Law, told the Associated Press that Lucas' recent posts demonstrate a "fundamental misunderstanding of what DEI is."
"It's really much more about creating a culture in which you get the most out of everyone who you're bringing on board, where everyone experiences fairness and equal opportunity, including white men and members of other groups," Glasgow said. "If DEI has been this engine of discrimination against white men, I have to say it hasn't really been doing a very good job at achieving that."
RELATED: Trump takes a wrecking ball to the woke campus economy
Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chairwoman who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, similarly complained, suggesting it was "problematic" for Lucas to speak out about the disenfranchisement of white men.
"It suggests some sort of priority treatment," said Yang, who served as deputy assistant to former President Joe Biden for so-called racial justice and equity. "That's not something that sounds to me like equal opportunity for all."
Hours ahead of Lucas sharing her video to social media, Vice President JD Vance noted on X that Savage's article was "an incredible piece that describes the evil of DEI and its consequences."
"A lot of people think DEI is lame diversity seminars or racial slogans at NFL games," Vance wrote. "In reality, it was a deliberate program of discrimination primarily against white men."
"This is why the Trump administration has so dedicated itself to eradicating racist discrimination. We've eliminated funding for DEI, required government grantees to certify that they're not engaged in DEI, fired a number of DEI employees, and asked the great [Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon] to aggressively prosecute all forms of racial discrimination," the vice president continued. "For too many Democrat leaders, racial discrimination was bad unless it targeted white men. This was an injustice, plain and simple."
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
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com