Displaying posts published in

July 2025

Too Little, Too Late, Harvard Is Told About Its Response to Antisemitism Claims

https://www.thefp.com/p/exclusive-too-little-too-late-harvard?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

After months of negotiations, the Trump administration tells Harvard that it could face a civil-rights lawsuit.

Harvard may now face litigation from the Justice Department for alleged antisemitic harassment. After concluding that Harvard would not voluntarily comply with civil-rights law, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Wednesday referred its investigation to the Justice Department, according to a letter sent to Harvard president Alan Garber.

On June 30, the Office of Civil Rights at HHS found Harvard in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs. Both before and after that finding, the government engaged in “extensive communications with Harvard about the steps needed to address antisemitism on its campus,” according to today’s letter.

The Free Press mobile app is here! The Free Press app gives you access to everything we write, record, and film, all in one place. It’s fast and easy to use, and the best way to make sure you never miss a Free Press story.

“Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the Federal government,” wrote Paula M. Stannard, the director of the HHS Office of Civil Rights. “The parties’ several months’ engagement has been fruitless.”

An HHS official told The Free Press that since the matter is now also in the Justice Department’s hands, a court could order penalties beyond the suspension of future funds. These could include a “consent decree or injunction” that would force Harvard to enforce its own policies on discrimination, harassment, and protest.

The Disgraceful Campaign Against a Top FDA Official

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-disgraceful-campaign-against-vinay-prasad-health-politics-trump?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

It’s America’s loss that Vinay Prasad will not be able to make the changes necessary to restore trust in public health officials.

Three months ago, Dr. Marty Makary, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, named Dr. Vinay Prasad to serve as the head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, a division that “regulates biological products for human use” and oversees their safety and effectiveness. In making the announcement on X, he described his new hire, a well-known oncologist, Substacker, and frequent critic of the public-health establishment, like this: “Dr. Prasad brings the kind of scientific rigor, independence, and transparency we need at CBER.”

We have long admired Prasad for precisely the reasons Makary cited, and have been proud to publish his pieces on such subjects as scientific fraud and the loss of trust in public health. One of his early policy decisions as the head of CBER was to end the unnecessary and divisive federal recommendation that young children be vaccinated against Covid-19. Dr. Prasad was an outspoken critic of government overreach during the pandemic, and with this act, it seemed possible that he could help restore the public’s lost faith in federal health institutions. 

Which is why we were so dismayed to read on Tuesday that he had abruptly left the agency. (You can read the backstory here, reported by our Gabe Kaminsky.)

Technically Prasad resigned, but it was under pressure from an ugly and unfounded smear campaign carried out by strange bedfellows, including Wall Street Journal editorial writer Allysia Finley, right-wing influencer Laura Loomer, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and, it would appear, by Sarepta Therapeutics, a company whose recently approved drug he had halted when two teenage patients and a young boy in Brazil died after taking it. 

What the Trump-Sadiq spat tells us about modern politics The populist Yank vs the hyper-woke Londoner – it’s the Western crisis distilled. Brendan O’Neill

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/07/30/what-the-trump-sadiq-spat-tells-us-about-modern-politics/

My favourite feud is back on. It’s Donald Trump vs Sadiq Khan. The wisecracking American president vs London’s pipsqueak mayor. The brash Yank voted into power by 77million souls bored rigid with elite opinion and the woke irritant in City Hall who embodies elite opinion. He’s a ‘nasty man’, said Trump of his old foe on Monday, re-igniting their bitchy spat that’s been rolling for nearly 10 years now. And I’m here for it.

It was while he was holding court at his luxury resort of Trump Turnberry in Scotland that Trump took yet another swipe at Sadiq. After playing a round of golf he had Keir Starmer over for a gab and some tea. Trump let rip. Wind turbines are crap, he said. They’re ‘ugly monsters’, they’re ‘made in China’ and they ‘kill the birds’. Even the Guardian had to admit a lot of this was true in its haughty rolling ‘fact-checking’ of the president.

He called on a visibly squirming Sir Keir to cut taxes and sort out the migrant crisis. He suggested he start fracking for gas in Aberdeen. He even seemed to hit on Starmer’s wife. ‘She’s very… she’s a great woman’, he said. ‘I don’t want to say more, I’ll get myself in trouble.’ Dude. The next day he doubled down on his bemusement at Britain’s embrace of the End Days cult of Net Zero. Starmer, he said, should be throwing open that ‘TREASURE CHEST’ of oil and gas in the North Sea and bringing down ‘energy costs for the people!’. He’s not wrong.

But it was his pop at Sadiq that got even robotic Starmer limply waving a manicured hand in vague protest. At Turnberry a reporter asked Trump if he’ll be visiting London. Trump, of course, has not once heard the word London without instantly thinking of its rubbish mayor. ‘I’m not a fan of your mayor’, he said. ‘I think he’s done a terrible job.’ Then the jibe: he’s a ‘nasty person’. Starmer stiffly intervened. ‘He’s a friend of mine’, he said, gingerly, in that lawyerly nasal whine, further proof that he’s the last man in Britain you’d want on your side in a fight at a pub.

The Cincinnati Cop-outs Black teens beat white bystanders in downtown Cincinnati as police, media, and public figures stay silent—revealing a dangerous double standard on racial violence. By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2025/07/31/the-cincinnati-cop-outs/

Recently, a large group of black youths began pummeling several white adults in downtown Cincinnati.

The original altercation apparently broke out between a black and white male in he-said/he-said fashion.

But that dispute soon turned into a virtual free-for-all.

Numerous male and female black youths sucker-punched a middle-aged woman and a man. Others continued to kick or body slam the victims, who were sprawled on their backs and seemingly unconscious.

There were many disturbing aspects to the beat-downs.

One, the violence broke out along racial and age fault lines. After the initial one-on-one dispute, groups of black youths swarmed solitary older white bystanders to pound them.

Two, the surrounding assembled group of black youths not only failed to intervene to restrain the bullies. They also recorded the beatings for social media and were heard cheering on the one-sided violence.

Three, there was neither a police presence nor any timely Good Samaritan interventions.

Instead, what ended the attacks was simply the fact that at least two of the targets appeared nearly comatose. So their assailants apparently concluded that their agenda of beating whites into unconsciousness was mostly complete.

Four, oddly few of the usual black spokespeople who habitually comment on interracial violence were to be seen.

During the fake Jussie Smollett attack, self-appointed leaders from Al Sharpton to Kamala Harris immediately issued warnings about so-called systemic white racism that had reared its ugly head to victimize Smollett.

Yet when it was revealed Smollett had concocted the entire charade—and even hired his own assaulters—there were few if any retractions from those once so eager to shout “racist!”

Who’s Really Starving Gaza? The world deserves to stop being lied to. by Aynaz Anni Cyrus

https://www.frontpagemag.com/whos-really-starving-gaza/

The Hunger Narrative

“Israel is starving Gaza.”

That’s the line. You’ve seen it splashed across headlines, painted on protest signs, shouted from international stages. The UN calls it a “man-made famine.” Celebrities post black squares with #LetGazaLive. Social media reels show crying children with empty bowls, overlaid with dramatic music and a single, pointed caption: Genocide by hunger.

The accusation is explicit, and it’s powerful. What better way to cast Israel as a monster than to say it withholds food from children? No need to mention rockets, tunnels, or terrorists when you can show an empty plate and let the world assume who’s holding it back.

But there’s a problem.

That narrative has a kill switch. It’s called truth.

And the truth is this: yes, Israel has restricted aid into Gaza, especially during periods of intensified fighting. Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly said that only “minimal” humanitarian aid will be allowed in—not zero, but not full access either. Tactical pauses have been announced to let trucks through. Convoys still move daily. Airdrops are happening. Israel even restored power to water pumps that serve Gaza civilians.

So no—this isn’t a total blockade. It’s a controlled, reduced flow of aid during a war against a terror regime that hijacks every resource it can. Israel’s goal, as stated, is military pressure—not civilian starvation.

But the global narrative ignores all that nuance.

Because the truth makes for bad propaganda.

Meanwhile, Hamas does everything it can to intensify the suffering, block the flow, and profit off the corpses. And that’s what the next section is about.

What Israel Is Actually Doing

Despite what you’ve been told, aid is entering Gaza.

Investigating Barack Obama and the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign Revenge or justice? by Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.frontpagemag.com/investigating-barack-obama-and-the-2016-trump-presidential-campaign/

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard just released a trove of apparently once-classified documents — with promises of much more to follow.

The new material describes the role of the Obama administration’s intelligence and investigatory directors — purportedly along with former President Barack Obama himself — in undermining the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. In addition, their efforts extended to sabotaging the 2016-2017 presidential transition and, by extension, the first three years of the Trump presidency.

The released documents add some new details to what over the last decade has become accepted knowledge.

Congressional committees, special prosecutors, and the inspectors general had all previously issued reports that largely confirmed the general outlines of the skullduggery that began in 2015-16.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign, later aided by the top echelon of the FBI, CIA, and the Director of National Intelligence, sought — falsely — to seed a narrative that Trump had colluded directly with Russia to win unfairly the 2016 election.

When that campaign gambit failed to alter the 2016 results, the Obama administration doubled down during the transition to undermine the incoming Trump presidency.

Next, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “all-star” legal team found no evidence of direct Trump-Putin collusion to hijack the election. But his investigation did sabotage 22 months of Trump’s first term, marked by constant leaks and hysterical rumors that Trump was soon to be convicted and jailed as a “Russian asset.”

By 2020, the frustrated intelligence agencies and former “authorities” now absurdly further lied that Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop had “all the earmarks” — once again — of Russian interference.

So, what could be new about Gabbard’s latest release?

‘That’s Not Funny!’ The Left’s fatal humor deficit. by Bruce Thornton

https://www.frontpagemag.com/thats-not-funny/

Left-wing comedy, especially late-night shows, took another hit recently when Paramount’s CBS canceled the Late Show and its host Stephen Colbert, whose pathetic ratings were nowhere near worth the millions of dollars the show has been burning through for years. The Dems’ press-agent media, of course, have been parroting Colbert’s claim that Paramount is carrying water for President Trump, the prime target of Colbert’s juvenile, humorless insults.

In reality, the show had a staff of 200, cost $100 million annually to produce, and lost $40 million a year. You don’t have to be Adam Smith to figure out why the show was cancelled. Once again, terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome has added another lefty Democrat comic to its growing casualty list.

More important, however, is why lefty comics and leftists in general are so unfunny? The answer is suggested by my title. Readers of a certain age, i.e. old, may remember where it comes from. Back in the Sixties and Seventies, there was a popular gag called “lightbulb jokes,” based on the question, “How many [fill in ethnic group, sex, profession etc.] does it take to screw in a lightbulb?” The punchline was something humorous, insulting, and satiric.

The feminist version started circulating about the same time, just when equity feminism had shifted from a movement for equal opportunity and rights, to its current Nurse Ratched version––a humorless, bossy, whiny, arrogant, leftwing, alpha-male-hating iteration of identity politics based on perpetual grievance and victimhood marinated in aggressive ressentiment. The joke goes like this: “How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?” The feminists’ punchline was always “That’s not funny!”

This tagline captures well the left’s humor deficit, which worsened with smug, self-righteous identity politics that flourished with “wokeism” and reflects the nature of Marxism––which is not just a political ideology, but a totalizing, deadly serious, messianic world view and way of life.

Adam Zivo Racial Hierarchies Are Gaining Traction in Canada A growing movement seeks to brand non-indigenous residents as “settlers” and relegate them to second-class citizenship

https://www.city-journal.org/article/canada-indigenous-identitarianism-settlers-race

It is increasingly fashionable in some progressive circles to label non-indigenous North Americans as “settlers,” mere guests on indigenous land. Who would have thought that blood-and-soil nationalism—the odious ideology that claims that only certain races belong to certain territories—would return, wrapped in the mantle of social justice?

This movement—call it “indigenous identitarianism”— is gaining traction across North America but has been especially influential in Canada, my home country. There, it has already begun to erode democratic decision-making in favor of race-based hierarchies. Americans would do well to look north to see how this path, if followed, could shape their own political and civic life.

Indigenous identitarianism generally posits that North America’s non-indigenous residents should be considered second-class citizens, either legally or symbolically. It suggests that they continually express gratitude for the “opportunity” to live on a continent “owned” by indigenous peoples.

To illustrate: Deanne LeBlanc, an award-winning academic at the University of British Columbia, wrote in a 2021 issue of the Canadian Journal of Political Science that non-indigenous Canadians should “consider themselves ‘foreigners’ in need of invitation onto Indigenous lands,” even if their families have lived on this continent for several generations. Similarly, Kaitie Jourdeuil, an academic at Queen’s University, published a 2022 article in The Conversation arguing that indigenous peoples should be given the right to make and enforce laws over 89 percent of Canadian land. That would mean some degree of disenfranchisement for millions of people.

One Chart To Kill The Medicaid Lies For Good

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/07/31/one-chart-to-kill-the-gutting-medicaid-lie-for-good/

Can anyone guess what is wrong with the following headline? “Democrats use new tactic to highlight Trump’s gutting of Medicaid: billboards in the rural U.S.”

That appeared in The Guardian newspaper over the weekend.

How about this one from NPR: “GOP governors stay silent amid plans to slash Medicaid spending in their states.”

Or this one from AP: “Rural hospitals brace for financial hits or even closure under Republicans’ $1 trillion Medicaid cut“

Or this one from NBC News: “Another report suggests Medicaid cuts could lead to thousands of deaths.”

Or countless others like these published in the wake of President Donald Trump’s signing the One Big Beautiful Bill?

What’s wrong with them all? They are all based on one big, fat lie. There are no cuts to Medicaid.

Diplomatic Terrorism?: France’s Recognition of an Imaginary Palestinian State by Drieu Godefridi

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21788/france-recognizes-imaginary-palestinian-state

International law — particularly Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention — defines the criteria for statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the capacity to engage in relations with other states. Yet neither of the two Palestinian political entities meets these criteria.

By choosing to recognize a “Palestinian state” that clearly fails to meet these established criteria, France departs from any international law. Macron’s declaration is not a matter of legal recognition, but a political gesture — ideological and electoral — masquerading as diplomacy.

[T]his recognition serves as a reward for terrorism. It offers no humanitarian benefit. As US President Donald Trump put it: “What Macron says is irrelevant—it won’t change anything.” The sole concrete outcome is the political legitimization of a jihadist, anti-Semitic, genocidal movement.

On 24 July 2025, France announced its decision to recognize the existence of a “Palestinian state” in September. President Emmanuel Macron portrayed this move as an act of “justice” and “peace.” In reality, however, this recognition constitutes a geopolitical fiction — contrary to international law, flagrantly at odds with the facts on the ground, and laden with profoundly harmful moral implications.

1. What State?

International law — particularly Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention — defines the criteria for statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the capacity to engage in relations with other states. Yet neither of the two Palestinian political entities meets these criteria.

On one side stands the Palestinian Authority (PA), headed by Mahmoud Abbas—a feeble administrative remnant, ostentatiously corrupt, loathed by his people and devoid of democratic legitimacy. No presidential election has been held since 2005. The PA’s limited authority extends over only a portion of the West Bank, and even there, it operates with the conditional consent of Israel and under the close oversight of the Israeli military, on which it depends for its own security.