The Dictatorship
Trump wants Linda McMahon to lead the command of his war on universities
When Donald Trump announced his choice of former World Wrestling Entertainment executive Linda McMahon to lead the Department of Education, his statement shouted that with her at the helm, “We will send Education BACK TO THE STATES.” The sentence was a reference to Trump’s previous pledge to shut down the department entirely — a promise Republicans have been making since it was created in 1979.
But axing the entire department was always unlikely — not just because it would require congressional action, but because what Trump actually wants is more federal control over education, not less.
The real focus in the new Trump administration will be higher education.
Like everything else in Trump’s vision for government, he wants the department McMahon would lead to be more corrupt, more ideologically right wing and less capable of doing the job it is supposed to do. In the past, McMahon has promoted private school vouchers that drain money from public schools, and she will surely do so again. But the real focus in the new Trump administration will be higher education. The war on universities is about to begin.
This war has both practical and political purposes for the GOP. For decades, demonizing higher education has been a favorite tactic for Republicans. They believe universities stand in fundamental opposition to the right’s project, and in many ways they’re correct: Most professors are liberal, and critical inquiry often undermines conservative ideas and values.
During the campaign, Trump released a video laying out his plan to “reclaim our once-great educational institutions from the radical left.” He promised to use the “secret weapon” of accreditation, punishing schools that don’t follow his instructions by stripping them of the certification without which they might not survive. “I will fire the radical left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics,” he said, and replace them with Trump-approved accreditors who will bring a more MAGA-friendly approach to higher education.
Trump also said he would have the Justice Department target “schools that continue to engage in racial discrimination,” by which he clearly meant efforts to promote diversity; his allies are planning to invert the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division so it focuses on alleged anti-white racism. If universities do not meet Trump’s standard, they “will not only have their endowment taxed, but through budget reconciliation, I will advance a measure to have them fined up to the entire amount of their endowment.”
Seizing the endowments of universities would almost certainly be illegal, but Trump is spoiling for a fight, and his “secret weapon” is a powerful threat. Accreditation is vital to every university; without it, their students can’t get federal loans and they can’t receive federal research funding (more than half of university research funds come from the federal government).
This assault is already going on at the state level, where Republicans have passed laws outlawing diversity programs, weakening tenure protections and gagging professors from discussing certain ideas. No politician has waged war on his state’s higher education system with more venom than Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. A 2023 report from the American Association of University Professors called DeSantis’ efforts “a politically and ideologically driven assault unparalleled in US history, which, if sustained, threatens the very survival of meaningful higher education in the state.”
In Vice President-elect JD Vance, Trump has an enthusiastic partner for this fight.
Trump is essentially promising to mount the same kind of attack from Washington. And there’s more. Project 2025 proposed to “deny loan access to students at schools that provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens.” (Trump, of course, disavowed Project 2025, but since the election, those around him have embraced it.) That would mean any student attending a state school in one of the 25 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition would have their loans cut off.
In Vice President-elect JD Vance, Trump has an enthusiastic partner for this fight. Earlier this year, as a senator, Vance sponsored legislation to take federal funding from universities that allowed undocumented students, including DACA recipients legally allowed to work, to have campus jobs. Vance has expressed admiration for the way Viktor Orbán, the authoritarian prime minister of Hungary, seized control of Hungarian universities as part of his effort to silence his critics. Vance argued that because universities are not properly educating students, “there needs to be a political solution to that problem.”
While Trump and Vance are no doubt sincere in their disgust with diversity and other liberal ideas, their war on universities is driven by politics. We are now in an age of education polarization; in 2020Joe Biden beat Trump among voters with college degrees by 24 points, and when the data comes in from 2024, the results will probably be similar. The same trend is visible in many Western democracies, as voters with more education increasingly support left-wing parties.
It isn’t just that Republicans are less interested in getting the support of voters with college degrees; they’re also eager to use universities as a foil and a scapegoat. We saw that last year when they put on what were essentially show trials of Ivy League presidents over protests against Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip. The purpose wasn’t to defend Jewish students (you’ll forgive me if I have trouble granting the sincerity of Rep. Elise Stefanik, lead inquisitor and one of the most cynically opportunistic characters in Washington); it was to make elite universities an object of anger and contempt.
When Republicans attack higher education as a cauldron of radical ideas that will turn your children against you, they not only undermine colleges and universities that are essential to America’s economy and innovation, they also feed distrust in institutions as a whole that has served Trump so well.
Trump has made many threats against both K-12 and higher education; we don’t know how many he’ll follow up on, or how much enthusiasm Linda McMahon will bring to this fight. But even if he accomplishes only some of his goals, the damage to our country, and one of its greatest engines of social and economic progress, will be severe.
The Dictatorship
Trump says not to rush as details emerge of a potential Iran deal
CAIRO (AP) — The United States is close to reaching a deal with Iran that would end the warreopen the Strait of Hormuz and see Iran give up its stockpile of highly enriched uraniumregional officials told The Associated Press on Sunday, though U.S. President Donald Trump said he told representatives “not to rush into a deal.”
Trump said negotiations were “proceeding in an orderly and constructive manner,” and the relationship with Iran was becoming “much more professional and productive.” He pushed back against criticism by some fellow Republicans seeking a tougher approach.
The agreement would not be signed Sunday, according to a person familiar with the status of negotiations who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly. The sides have previously seemed close to a deal in recent weeks, only to falter.
The strait’s reopening would ease a worldwide energy crisis sparked by the U.S. and Israeli bombardment of Iran on Feb. 28, which led Tehran to effectively close the waterway. Prices have spiked for oil, gas and related products. Experts say it would take several weeks or even months for shipping and prices to recover once the strait reopens.
The U.S. has blockaded Iranian ports for over a month, and Trump said it “will remain in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed.”
The emerging deal would include Iran giving up uranium
Under the potential deal, Tehran would agree to give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, according to the two regional officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive negotiations.
One official, with direct knowledge of the negotiations, said how Iran would give up the uranium would be subject to further talks during a 60-day period. Some would likely be diluted, while the rest would be transferred to a third country, the official said. Russia has offered to take it.
A U.S. official confirmed the 60-day period and said if Iran doesn’t give up its stockpile there will be no sanctions relief. The official spoke on condition of anonymity about the emerging deal because it has not been made public.
Iran has 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium that is enriched up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Iran has not publicly committed to giving up its uranium, a key Trump demand. President Masoud Pezeshkian told state TV they were ready “to assure the world that we are not after a nuclear weapon.”
Iran has always insisted its program is peaceful while enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels, and asserts its right to nuclear technology.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, on a visit to Indiasaid that “significant progress, although not final progress, has been made” in negotiations, and the world would no longer need to fear Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
Rubio told India Today that the “first stage” ahead would be the full reopening of the strait. “The second is that Iran needs to enter into serious negotiations on three topics: their pledge never to have nuclear weapons, restrictions long-term on their enrichment capabilities, and what do you do with the highly enriched uranium?”
Trump has sought greater concessions from Iran than those required under a 2015 Obama-era agreement that the U.S. later withdrew from under Trump.
On Saturday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei told the state-run news agency there are “narrowing differences” between the Iranian and U.S. positions, but Iran is cautious after being attacked twice in the past year during nuclear negotiations.
The strait would reopen and Iran would be able to sell oil
Under the emerging agreement, the Strait of Hormuz would gradually reopen in parallel with the U.S. ending its blockade, the two regional officials and the U.S. official said. The U.S. official said the strait would be demined, though a U.S. official on Friday said the military has not found any mines there.
The U.S. would allow Iran to sell its oil through sanctions waivers, said the second official, who has been briefed on the negotiations. Sanctions relief and the release of Iran’s frozen funds would be negotiated during the 60-day period, the official said.
Both officials said the draft deal includes an end to the war between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon that began two days after the Iran war started.
Twelve weeks have passed since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, killing its supreme leader and other top officials. A ceasefire has held since April 7, though the sides have exchanged fire on occasion.
Israel remains concerned over Hezbollah
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a social media post said he and Trump agreed that “any final agreement with Iran must eliminate the nuclear danger,” and that Trump had reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself “on every front, including Lebanon.”
The U.S. official said the deal would guarantee Israel’s right to act against imminent threats in self-defense.
Israeli officials are concerned that Hezbollah remains a serious threat to Israel and that Lebanon is ill-equipped to disarm it.
A fragile, U.S.-brokered ceasefire took effect in Lebanon on April 17, but fighting has continued, mainly in the south. Hezbollah has launched daily drone and rocket attacks on Israeli forces and northern Israel, and Israel has struck targets across Lebanon while its troops remain in large swaths of the south.
More than 3,000 people have been killed in the latest fighting, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. Additionally, 22 Israeli soldiers and a defense contractor have been killed in or near southern Lebanon, and two civilians have been killed in northern Israel, according to Netanyahu’s office.
___
Superville reported from Washington and Lidman from Tel Aviv, Israel. Associated Press writers Aamer Madhani in Washington, Sheikh Saaliq in New Delhi and Munir Ahmed in Islamabad contributed to this report.
The Dictatorship
I’m not voting for Spencer Pratt — but I’m still glad he’s running for L.A. mayor
ByHelaine R. I am
No one should be surprised that a reality show star-turned-social media influencer can do well in a political race. We just need to look to the White House to know that. They have a knack for speaking uncomfortable truths in a way that gets maximum attention.
What is forever the shock at who is doing that. So, let me get this out of the way at the outset: No, I don’t support Spencer Pratt’s quest for mayor of Los Angeles. I have even donated to one of his opponents, Los Angeles City Council member Nithya Raman. But I am surprised to discover that I owe Pratt – yes, the same Spencer Pratt best known as the villainous, troublemaking cad on the MTV’s The Hills – a debt of gratitude for interjecting a much-needed dose of reality into the city’s mayoral race.
Think of it as the electoral equivalent of saying “the emperor has no clothes,” updated for the social media age.
A registered Republican in a largely Democratic city, Pratt is shaking up what looked to be a sleepy mayoral election. He has jumped to second place in the polls by using social media (including supporter-generated AI content) to channel voter rage at not just the city’s striking deterioration, but the political establishment’s seemingly complacent attitude toward it. He’s particularly highlighted the failures that led to the devastating Pacific Palisades wildfire – in which Pratt, his family, and thousands of other city residents lost their homes – and the city’s intractable issues with homelessness and tent encampments. Think of it as the electoral equivalent of saying “the emperor has no clothes,” updated for the social media age.
He’s far from alone in his fury. Many residents believe the City of Angels has become a hellishly difficult place to live. Housing prices – both to buy or rent — are high. The streaming bubble has burstand Hollywood is in a protracted recession. Shoots increasingly likely to take place in locales offering more generous tax credits and easier, cheaper permitting. The roads are increasingly dotted with potholesas the cash-strapped city has ceased most repaving projects. Even the city’s animal shelters are mired in crises and scandal. Corruption and incompetence are endemic, with $2.4 billion in homeless funds simply unaccounted for. No surprise, a large majority of voters say the city is headed in the wrong direction.
Yes, it’s quite likely Pratt’s not up for the job. When asked, he said he would rely on an unnamed expert “team” to advise him. TMZ scooped that though Pratt cut a campaign ad claiming he is residing in a trailer, he’s actually been living in a swanky Bel Air hotel. And according to TMZ and Deadline, production on a reality show about his campaign is underway, with Pratt’s full participation. A “reality show” mayor is not the solution to the city’s problems.

But the performance of the city’s political class hardly inspires confidence. Incumbent Karen Bass infamously skipped town before the outbreak of the Pacific Palisades wildfire on a less-than-necessary diplomatic mission to Ghana, and failed to return early even after Hurricane Katrina-like wind warnings were issued. Bass says that film and TV productions are up from their lows and homelessness is down from the highs. But these very incremental gains are clearly thin gruel to many voters.
The other main challenger, DSA-affiliated Raman, often speaks eloquently on the need to tackle the city’s housing and business bureaucratic bottlenecks, And her assessment of Pratt as a “mini Trump” is hyperbolic but understandable, given the thinness of some of his suggested fixes and the nastiness undergirding many of his attacks. Yet her suggestion that the city should up its outreach and better coax people living on the streets to accept help sounds more like a doubling down on the unpopular and largely ineffective status quo.
As of now, few analysts believe Pratt – currently polling in second place – can prevail in a general election.
Pratt is calling much of this out: “Business as usual is a death sentence for Los Angeles,” he says, and promises he will make the city “camera-ready again.” Instead of rationalizing the city’s homeless crisis, he calls for “no more encampments” and says he will have “zero tolerance” for public drug use. As for Raman’s plan? “These people don’t want a bed. They want fentanyl or super-meth.” (He also suggested if she actually approached a homeless addict, she could “get stabbed in the neck.” Charming.) At a mayoral debate earlier this month, Pratt made mincemeat of Raman, forcing many pundits to reckon more seriously with his campaign.
The jungle primary is in less than two weeks, with the top two finishers competing in November. Polls have Bass in the lead — but with only about 30 percent of the vote. This, you probably don’t need me to tell you, is a dreadful showing for an incumbent – and one that bespeaks problems in November.
As of now, few analysts believe Pratt – currently polling in second place – can prevail in a general election. Los Angeles is always a Democratic stronghold, ICE raids weigh heavily in voters’ minds, and Trump is so unpopular here that his recent support for Pratt are more likely to hurt the reality star than help him. Yet while Raman currently stands a better chance in a one-on-one against Bass, polls put her in third place, behind Pratt.
But, in the meantime, Pratt’s done Los Angeles a favor. The Hills was, in its own way, a love letter to Los Angeles. Forcing the city’s political establishment to acknowledge voter concerns and at least begin to address them is also an act of love. Even when it’s done by an operator like Spencer Pratt.
Helaine R. I am
Helaine R. Olen is the author of “Pound Foolish: Exposing the Dark Side of the Personal Finance Industry” and a co-author of “The Index Card: Why Personal Finance Doesn’t Have to Be Complicated.” She has been a columnist for The Washington Post and Slate, and her work has also appeared in numerous other publications, including The New York Times and The Atlantic.
The Dictatorship
Pope Leo XIV apologizes for Vatican’s role in legitimizing slavery
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Leo XIVmade a historic apology on Monday for the role the Holy See played in legitimizing slavery and for having failed to condemn it for centuries, calling the Vatican’s record a “wound in Christian memory.”
Past popes have apologized for Christians’ involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But no pope had ever publicly acknowledged, much less apologized for, the role that past popes played in giving European sovereigns explicit authority to subjugate and enslave “infidels.”
History’s first U.S.-born pope, whose family historyincludes both enslaved people and slave owners, delivered the apology in his first encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas,” (Magnificent Humanity), which was released Monday.
The sweeping manifesto is about safeguarding humanity in an era of increasing reliance on artificial intelligence. Leo raised the trans-Atlantic slave trade in relation to what he called the new forms of slavery and colonialism that the digital revolution is fueling, such as the unregulated labor practices in procuring rare minerals needed for AI chips.
Anthea Butler, senior fellow at the Koch History Center, Oxford University, said Leo needed to acknowledge and atone for the Catholic Church’s complicity in historic slavery if he wanted to credibly “speak to the current issues of technological enslavement.”
“For descendants of enslaved persons, this is once again a much needed apology from the pope,” said Butler, who is Black.
Black American Catholics, activists and scholars have long called for the Holy See to atone for its role in the colonial-era trade in human beings, beyond more generic apologies for the involvement of individual Christians.
“It is impossible not to feel deep sorrow when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in stark contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the Lord,” Leo wrote. “For this, in the name of the church, I sincerely ask for pardon.”
Centuries of legitimizing slavery for European colonizers
The Vatican has insisted that it always upheld the dignity of all human beings as children of God. But a series of 15th-century directives from the Vaticanauthorized Portuguese sovereigns to conquer Africa and the Americas and enslave non-Christians.
In 1452, for example, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, which gave the Portuguese king and his successors the right “to invade, conquer, fight and subjugate” and take all possessions — including land — of “Saracens, and pagans, and other infidels, and enemies of the name of Christ” anywhere.
The bull also gave the Portuguese permission “to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”
That bull and another issued three years later, Romanus Pontifex, formed the basis of the Doctrine of Discoverythe theory that legitimized the colonial-era seizure of land in Africa and the Americas.
Nicholas V’s permissions to the Portuguese were confirmed or renewed by Pope Callixtus III in 1456, Pope Sixtus IV in 1481 and Pope Leo X in 1514, according to the Rev. Christopher J. Kellerman, a Jesuit priest and author of “All Oppression Shall Cease: A History of Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Catholic Church.”
Spanish kings received the rights for the Americas.
In 2023, the Vatican formally repudiated the Doctrine of Discoverybut it never formally rescinded, abrogated or rejected the bulls themselves. The Vatican insists that a later bull, Sublimis Deus in 1537, reaffirmed that Indigenous peoples shouldn’t be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, and weren’t to be enslaved.
Holy See late to condemn slavery, Leo says
In his encyclical, Leo recalled that his namesake, Pope Leo XIII, was the first pope to explicitly condemn slavery in 1888, long after many countries had abolished it. Before that, in antiquity and the Middle Ages, even church institutions had slaves.
In acknowledging the Holy See’s role and the 15th-century papal bulls, Leo wrote in his encyclical: “Already in the early modern period, the Apostolic See of Rome, responding to the requests of sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimize forms of subjugation, and, in certain cases, including the enslavement of ‘infidels.’”
Leo said that it wasn’t possible to judge the morality of the decisions with today’s standards.
“Yet neither can we deny or diminish the delay with which both society and the church came to denounce the scourge of slavery,” he said.
The pope said that the church has long affirmed the dignity of every human being as the basis of its doctrine, “even if it took eighteen centuries for its full incompatibility with slavery to be explicitly recognized.”
“This constitutes a wound in Christian memory, one from which we cannot consider ourselves detached,” he said.
Leo said that the church must firmly condemn all forms of trafficking related to the digital technological revolution “if we want to avoid the need to ask for pardon again in the future for having failed to respect the treasure of human dignity that is required by our faith.”
Leo’s own family history and past apologies
Kellerman, the scholar, welcomed Leo’s apology but said more needs to be done to further acknowledge and atone for how the Catholic Church legitimized and expanded slavery.
“Pope Leo has strengthened the moral credibility of the church with this admission and apology today,” he told The Associated Press. “Hopefully a future document will explain in more detail the church’s involvement with slaveholding. As a scholar I have some quibbles with the wording, but this is a truly remarkable moment.”
During a 1985 visit to Cameroon, St. John Paul II asked forgiveness of Africans for the slave trade on behalf of Christians who participated in it. In a 1992 visit to Goree Island, Senegal, which was the largest slave-trading center in West Africa, he denounced the injustice of slavery and called it a “tragedy of a civilization that called itself Christian.”
According to genealogical research published by Henry Louis Gates Jr., 17 of Leo’s American ancestors were Black, listed in census records as mulatto, Black, Creole or a free person of color. His family tree includes slaveholders and enslaved people, Gates wrote in The New York Times.
During a visit to Angola last month, Leo prayed at a Catholic shrine at the site of an important hub of the African slave tradeduring Portugal’s colonial rule. While at the Sanctuary of Mama Muxima, Leo recalled the “sorrow and great suffering” Angolans endured for centuries, but he didn’t refer specifically to slavery.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words









