The CIA Report: Why a Low Confidence Finding is the Height of Hypocrisy
By Jonathan Turley | January 27, 2025
Every modern president seems to promise transparency during their campaigns, but few ever seem to get around to it. Once in power, the value of being opaque becomes evident. We will have to wait to see if President Donald Trump will fulfill his pledges, but so far this is proving the cellophane administration. Putting aside his constant press gaggles and conferences, the Administration has ordered wholesale disclosures of long-withheld files from everything from the JFK investigation to, most recently, the CIA COVID origins report. That report is particularly stinging for both the Biden Administration and its media allies.
Newly-confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the report, which details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus. Expressing “low confidence,” the agency still favored that theory over the natural origins theory, which was treated as sacrosanct by the media and favored by figures like Anthony Fauci. (Other recent reports have contradicted the equally orthodox view on the closing of schools, showing no material benefit in terms of slowing the transmission of COVID).
Even a low-confidence finding shows the height of hypocrisy in Washington where politicians and pundits savaged any scientist who even suggested the possibility that the virus was man-made and likely originated in the Wuhan lab near the site of the outbreak.
This follows a recent disclosure in the Wall Street Journal of a report on how the Biden administration may have suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of President Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.
As previously discussed, many journalists used the rejection of the lab theory to paint Trump as a bigot. By the time Biden became president, not only were certain government officials heavily invested in the zoonotic or natural origin theory, but so were many in the media.
Reporters used opposition to the lab theory as another opportunity to pound their chests and signal their virtue.
MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading one of his favorite “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified,”
MSNBC’s Joy Reid also called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum,” while CNN reporter Drew Griffin criticized spreading the “widely debunked” theory. CNN host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.
NBC News’s Janis Mackey Frayer described it as the “heart of conspiracy theories.”
The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) raised the theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”
Likewise, after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”
As these efforts failed and more information emerged supporting the lab theory, many media figures just looked at their shoes and shrugged. Others became more ardent. In 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory.
In Kessler’s case, he wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible” as if it had sprung from the head of Zeus rather than having been supported for years by scientists, many of whom had been canceled and banned.
As these figures were attacking reports, Biden officials were sitting on these reports. Figures like Fauci did nothing to support those academics being canceled or censored for raising the theory.
The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.
The suppression of the lab theory proves the ultimate fallacy of censorship. Throughout history, censorship has never succeeded. It has never stopped a single idea or a movement. It has a perfect failure rate. Ideas, like water, have a way of finding their way out in time.
Yet, as the last few years have shown, it does succeed in imposing costs on those with dissenting views. For years, figures like Bhattacharya (who was recently awarded the prestigious Intellectual Freedom Award by the American Academy of Sciences and Letters) were hounded and marginalized.
Others opposed Bhattacharya’s right to offer his scientific views, even under oath. For example, in one hearing, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) expressed disgust that Bhattacharya was even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”
Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik decried an event associated with Bhattacharya, writing that “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford University allowed dissenting scientists to speak at a scientific forum. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”
One of the saddest aspects of this story is that many of these figures in government, academia and the media were not necessarily trying to shield China. Some were motivated by their investment in the narrative while others were drawn by the political and personal benefits that came from joining the mob against a minority of scientists.
The CIA report does not resolve this debate, but it shows that there is a legitimate debate despite the overwhelming message of the media and the attacks on scientists. Of course, the same media and political figures responsible for this culture of intimidation have simply moved on. The value of an alliance with the media is that such embarrassing contradictions are not reported. At most, these figures shrug and turn to the next subject for groupthink and mob action.
Biden and Trump Administrations Commit Combined Billions to mRNA Vaccine Technologies
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 22, 2025
The Biden and Trump administrations in the last week threw money and political weight behind mRNA vaccine development, sparking backlash from critics concerned about serious safety and efficacy issues tied to the technology.
The Biden administration on Friday awarded Moderna $590 million to fund its work on mRNA vaccines for bird flu and other influenza strains with “pandemic potential,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced.
During a press conference on his second day in office, Trump voiced political support for a $500 billion private-sector project called Stargate.
The joint venture is between OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank and others to fund infrastructure for artificial intelligence (AI). Part of that project involves AI for early cancer detection and the rapid creation of mRNA cancer vaccines.
The Trump administration developed the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines under Operation Warp Speed in 2020. After Trump left office, the Biden administration poured billions into mRNA vaccine development.
Given Trump’s embrace of the MAHA movement and his nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head up HHS, some predicted his second administration might take a more critical stance toward such vaccines.
“It is deeply concerning, though not entirely surprising, that the incoming Trump administration is continuing to pursue massive funding for mRNA technology, including speculative cancer therapies,” author and natural health expert Sayer Ji told The Defender.
“This direction underscores a troubling bipartisan embrace of experimental biotechnologies, despite the catastrophic fallout from mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which have been linked to unprecedented adverse events, disabilities and deaths,” he added.
Biden gives last-minute windfall to Moderna
The Biden administration awarded Moderna $590 million through HHS’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, which has been working with Moderna since 2023 to develop mRNA vaccines for flu vaccines with pandemic potential, including avian influenza A.
Last year BARDA gave the biotech company $176 million as part of the same initiative.
HHS said the new round of funding will help Moderna accelerate the development of a bird flu vaccine matched to strains currently circulating in cattle and birds. It will also expand the clinical data needed if other flu strains with pandemic potential emerge.
Moderna said in a statement that it plans to launch a Phase 3 study for its investigational pandemic influenza vaccine (mRNA-1018) after “positive” Phase 1/2 results, which will be released to the public at an upcoming meeting.
“It seems to me that this last-minute night and fog action by the Biden administration is designed to shovel as much dough to Moderna as possible to mitigate the risk posed by Robert Kennedy, provided he gets through Senate confirmation,” John Leake at the McCullough Foundation told The Defender. “Putting the brakes on that is a plausible interpretation.”
With the funding, Moderna also will design and test an H7N9 pandemic influenza vaccine in a Phase 3 trial. The company will design up to four more “novel pandemic influenza” vaccines that it will test in preliminary safety and immunogenicity studies.
“mRNA technology will complement existing vaccine technology, allowing us to move faster and better target emerging viruses to protect Americans’ against future pandemics,” said Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) Dawn O’Connell. BARDA is part of ASPR within HHS.
The award is the latest component of the BARDA Influenza and Emerging Infectious Diseases Division’s medical countermeasure portfolio, set to continue to make major investments in “medical countermeasures” for potential pandemics as part of BARDA’s 2022-2026 strategic plan.
BARDA administers the funding through its Rapid Response Partnership Vehicle (RRPV), a technical financial vehicle that allows it to fund private industry through collaborations that are not subject to the same regulations as other federal funding.
On Jan. 16, the day before HHS announced the $590 million for Moderna, the agency announced another $211 million award to BARDA’s RRPV to “support development and long-term manufacturing capability of an RNA-based vaccine platform technology to combat evolving 21st century biothreats.”
RRPV is soliciting proposals for mRNA vaccine developers to develop a broad response capability. It seeks proposals that will first develop mRNA flu vaccines and then, once they are licensed, focus on continual pandemic preparedness exercises. Applications are due by Jan. 31.
Trump throws weight behind mRNA technology
Although the Trump administration did not promise funding for Stargate, the president endorsed the initiative and reversed a Biden administration executive order that Republicans said hindered AI development.
“I’m gonna help a lot through emergency declarations, because we have an emergency, we have to get this stuff built,” Trump said.
During the press conference announcing the initiative, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison touted the promise of AI and mRNA vaccines. He said AI would be able to detect cancer in its early stages and customize mRNA vaccines to treat them within 48 hours.
Critics pointed to the unprecedented number of adverse effects associated with existing mRNA vaccines, the lack of success in cancer vaccines thus far, and ethical concerns associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, Ji wrote on Substack.
“That is not a vaccine,” Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland said, commenting on the concept. “That’s a gene therapy. What we’ve seen from the COVID mRNA shots is that they’ve been disastrous for the immune system.” Holland noted that the injections themselves have been linked to turbo cancers.
Other experts also cast doubt on the idea. “That’s not going to happen,” oncologist Vinay Prasad wrote on his Substack.
Prasad said hundreds of cancer therapeutic vaccines have been studied and failed. The one that received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration extended survival by only four months.
There is no reason that mRNA vaccines would have greater success, given the compromised immune system of cancer patients, he added.
Additionally, Prasad said, mRNA vaccines, “clearly have unique and idiosyncratic toxicity. Because they were pushed so hard for covid-19, there’s a huge fraction of the public who does not want them. They do have unexplored long-term safety questions. I’m not going to be standing in line to get any. “
Ji told The Defender that Trump’s support for the initiative had been “particularly disheartening” for the MAHA movement.
“Trump ran on a platform of health sovereignty and freedom, yet this Stargate initiative feels like a significant departure from those values,” Ji said. He added:
“Instead of investing in regenerative, self-healing approaches to health and addressing the root causes of diseases like cancer, resources are being funneled into a technology that many view as inherently transgenic and transhumanistic, violating core principles of health and human dignity.”
Leake, a critic of the COVID-19 vaccines and the power concentrated in the bio-pharmaceutical complex, said he was less concerned about Ellison’s statements than others.
He wrote on Substack that he thinks it’s better for Trump to “capture the Billionaire Nerds” than to shun them. He told The Defender the tech billionaires already have so much power over the deep state and the legislature that pragmatically, Trump will have to negotiate with them.
“Trump doesn’t have control over Larry Ellison’s tongue. Larry Ellison is going to say what Larry wants to say,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that in any US government deal that is ultimately consummated with Larry Ellison as a partner that his fantasies about mRNA have to be realized. It’s just Larry Ellison spitballing.”
Elon Musk also doubted the claims touted in the press conference. He wrote on X that the companies “don’t actually have the money” to back their pledged infrastructure investment.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Scientific Societies Err on ‘Climate Change’
By Wallace Manheimer | American Thinker | January 10, 2025
Major scientific organizations’ statements on “climate change” and the conclusions therein form the basis of much of the scientific foundation for governmental, scientific, media, and public concerns on the use of fossil fuels. Trillions of public and private dollars are currently being spent on alternative fuels to “save the planet” from the alleged harm of increasing CO2, a gas which is vital for life on earth. If the evaluations of these societies are erroneous, these measures could impoverish much of the world, to say nothing of wasting trillions. Economic damage and social unrest are already evident in some countries, including the United States. It is therefore imperative for all that their views be based on sound science, and if not, these societies should change their statements.
A recent publication and podcast have examined the scientific organization’s climate statements, and have found numerous errors, errors which are easy to find by simply comparing the societies’ statements with data from such reliable sources as NOAA, NASA, and others. These societies are the American Physical Society (APS), American Meteorological Society (AMS), National Academy of Science (NAS), American Chemical Society (ACS), and American Geophysical Union (AGU).
Here is one example. The AGU states “Greater CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are also affecting the growth and nutritional value of land plants…” Numerous studies, including measurements of terrestrial plant life from space, and measurements of crop production, have shown that if anything, increasing CO2 has increased both plant life and crop production. After all, CO2 is a vital nutrient for plants, and the slight warming we have experienced, possibly in part due to the increased CO2, has increased the growing seasons in the temperate latitudes.
As another example, the ACS statement asserts: “Extreme weather and related events, such as floods, droughts… are increasing in frequency and intensity, threatening Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being.”. The frequency and intensity of floods and droughts is measured by what is called NOAA’s Palmer drought index and this index is displayed as a graph vs of index versus year. It shows clearly, that in the United States the worst sustained droughts in the U.S. were in the 1930s and 1950s, and the worst sustained floods were in the 1970s through the 1990s.
Tens of thousands of scientists, including over 10,000 with Ph.Ds., have critically examined the evidence, and have concluded that a CO2-induced climate crisis is extremely unlikely. They have willingly and publicly asserted this, by adding their names to document such as, the Oregon petition, Clintel Climate Petition , and the CO2 Coalition. Among other things, the societies should not ignore these, professional conclusions of many of their members.
Accordingly, and with humility, I suggest that these societies do the following:
- Replace their climate statements with ones that say there is most likely an effect humans have on the changing climate, but its importance for humanity is uncertain and it is still being debated.
- Eliminate statements that are demonstrably incorrect, as shown by comparison with easily available and reliable data.
- Acknowledge in their statements that fossil fuels cannot be replaced in the next several decades without greatly endangering our civilization.
- Acknowledge in their statements that CO2 has obvious obvious benefit for human existence, as well as potential risks.
By changing their statements to ones that are more moderate and scientifically correct, these societies will not only be helping the professions they serve, but more important, will ultimately be aiding humanity. On the other hand, if they keep their statements as they are, they will remain on the wrong side of history, and posterity will not look kindly on them. And posterity may be arriving sooner than they think. With a Republican Congress and President Trump referring to the “green new scam,” these society presidents may find themselves hauled before Congress to receive the university president treatment.
After all, the APS statement says, “Multiple lines of evidence strongly support the finding that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant driver of global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.” What will its president say when the congressman puts up a graph showing that for 30 years in the early decades of the 20th century, the warming rate was the same or greater? Or when he puts up a map proving that the northern forests, 4000 years ago extended about 200 miles further north worldwide than they do today. Or shows that 2000 years ago, the Romans had vineyards in England extending all the way to Hadrian’s wall, millennia before cold weather grapes had been developed. Or when he shows evidence that 1000 years ago the Vikings grew barley in Greenland, something not possible today. Surely this proves that the world had many warmer periods without the help of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
There are many such statements that Congress can quote, to very publicly humiliate these society presidents. As a committed life fellow of the APS, I hope these societies will change their statements now, before the roof collapses on them.
FL GRAND JURY EXPOSES COVID VACCINE HARMS AND FAILURES
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 16, 2025
Trump Orders U.S. to Withdraw From World Health Organization
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 21, 2025
Within roughly 8 hours of taking his oath of office, President Donald Trump on Monday signed an order to withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO).
Trump’s executive order cited numerous reasons for pulling the U.S. out of the WHO, including:
“The organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic … and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”
The WHO also “continues to demand unfairly onerous payments” from the U.S., the order stated. “China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.”
Commenting on the news, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland told The Defender:
“I applaud President Trump’s decision to leave the World Health Organization. It hasn’t been transparent, based on science, or serving the U.S. interest in public health.
“The World Health Organization is not a reformable institution. Its proposed Pandemic Treaty is a nightmare and would lead to more gain-of-function research and pandemics.”
Holland said she hopes the move “will lead to a global reconsideration of how to handle public health and international crises.”
Public health physician and biotech consultant Dr. David Bell told The Defender, “WHO needs a radical shake-up.”
Bell, a former medical officer and scientist at the WHO, said the WHO needs a “massive downsizing” and “to return to basic public health rather than the profit-driven false agenda of rising pandemic risk that WHO has embarked on.”
For instance, Bell criticized recent WHO efforts to push the mpox vaccine in Africa, diverting resources from addressing far more deadly health issues, such as malaria, malnutrition, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.
“If WHO does not respond by a total reversal of direction and values,” Bell said, “then we should hope that this withdrawal goes forward and others join.”
Trump’s move came as no surprise. As early as December 2023, his transition team was pushing for an exit from the WHO on day one of the new administration.
U.S. law requires a one-year notice and the payment of any outstanding fees when the country withdraws from the WHO. That means the final full withdrawal will take effect in early 2026.
Monday’s executive order came as a follow-up to Trump’s efforts during his first presidential term to withdraw from the WHO.
In July 2020, Trump moved to officially withdraw the U.S. from the WHO by submitting a notice of withdrawal to the United Nations’ (U.N.) secretary-general.
The withdrawal would have taken effect July 6, 2021. However, Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, who on Jan. 20, 2021, retracted Trump’s withdrawal notification letter.
Monday’s executive order revoked Biden’s letter. It also said the secretary of state would immediately inform the U.N.’s secretary-general — again — of the U.S. intention to withdraw.
The order also revoked another order Biden issued in January 2021 that called for a U.S. federal response to COVID-19 that included “engaging with and strengthening the World Health Organization.”
U.S. government personnel or contractors working “in any capacity” with the WHO will be recalled and reassigned, the order stated.
Investigative journalist Whitney Webb cautioned against reading too much into Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO.
She wrote in an X post:
“To be fair, Trump also left the WHO in mid-2020 and then just redirected what was once WHO funding to the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine alliance. While leaving the WHO is positive, it is not the slam dunk some are advertising, especially considering Gates’ recent comments on Trump’s enthusiasm for his ‘vaccine innovation’ proposals.”
U.S. is WHO’s biggest funder
The U.S. is by far the WHO’s largest financial backer, Reuters reported, providing roughly 18% of the organization’s overall budget.
The WHO’s most recent budget, for 2024-2025, was $6.8 billion.
The next-largest state donor — when combining mandatory fees and voluntary contributions — is Germany, which provides around 3%, Reuters said.
Germany’s health minister today said that leaders in Berlin will try to talk Trump out of his decision.
When asked about Trump’s order, Guo Jiakun — a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry — said today at a regular press briefing that the WHO’s role in global health governance should be strengthened, not weakened.
“China will continue to support the WHO in fulfilling its responsibilities, and deepen international public health cooperation,” Jiakun said.
The WHO said in a statement that it regrets Trump’s decision. “We hope the United States will reconsider.”
WHO pandemic treaty would have ‘no binding force’ in U.S.
Although the full withdrawal by the U.S. from the WHO won’t take effect until January 2026, Monday’s executive order said U.S. negotiations on a WHO-led pandemic treaty or amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) will cease immediately.
Independent journalist James Roguski pointed out on Substack that there aren’t any negotiations underway.
Negotiations stopped last May when negotiators failed to submit final texts for the two documents before the May 24 deadline.
Instead, member states on June 1, 2024, agreed to a smaller package of amendments.
Monday’s order closes the door to the possibility that the U.S. might resume negotiations during the next year — or implement the few IHR amendments passed last June. Trump’s order stated:
“While withdrawal is in progress, the Secretary of State will cease negotiations on the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the amendments to the International Health Regulations, and actions taken to effectuate such agreement and amendments will have no binding force on the United States.”
Roguski said Trump should go further by issuing a letter that revokes the amendments the WHO adopted on June 1, 2024, and clarifies that the U.S. “is also exiting the International Health Regulations.”
In May 2024, 22 state attorneys general said in a letter that they would refuse to comply with a WHO-led pandemic treaty or IHR amendments. They cited concerns about national sovereignty and civil liberties.
Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender she was “delighted” by Trump’s announcement.
Terhorst said that she and other international lawyers who worked to stop the WHO’s “power grab” discovered that the U.S. delegation had been the “primary force behind the power grab.”
Trump also signs order to end gov’t censorship
Other orders signed Monday include one that restores free speech and ends federal censorship of U.S. citizens.
“Over the last 4 years,” the order said, “the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.”
It continued:
“Under the guise of combatting ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation,’ the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.
“Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”
That can’t happen anymore, the order said.
Citing the First Amendment, the order outlined what will now be the policy of the federal government when it comes to free speech. The government’s job is to:
(a) secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech;
(b) ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen;
(c) ensure that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; and
(d) identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.
No federal agency, department or worker can use government resources for an activity that contradicts that job, the order said.
The order also called on state attorneys general to investigate whether the Biden administration engaged in censorship of Americans’ views. It directed them to write a report about its findings that includes “recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken based on the findings.”
It is unclear how the order may affect ongoing litigation related to federal censorship.
That’s because the order’s final clause states that the order is not intended to — and does not — “create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”
On Jan. 6, CHD petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.
“The record in CHD v. Meta,” Holland said, “clearly shows Facebook’s close collaboration with the White House to censor vaccine-related speech, even pre-COVID.”
CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg told The Defender she is “certainly pleased” to see the new administration take quick action to address the “rampant censorship by the government over the past four years and to investigate governmental wrongdoing.”
“However,” Rosenberg said, “CHD’s censorship cases will continue. We have provided the courts with substantial evidence of wrongdoing by the government and by social media companies against CHD.”
“The executive order — while a significant positive step — does not remedy the harms done to CHD,” she added.
Related articles in The Defender:
- Is Trump Transition Team Pushing for WHO Exit on Day One?
- WHO Approves First Mpox Vaccine for Adults in Africa — Then Says Babies Can Get It, Too, Despite No Clinical Trials
- WHO Passes ‘Watered-down’ IHR Amendments, Plans to Revisit Pandemic Treaty ‘Within a Year’
- 22 AGs Oppose WHO Pandemic Treaty, Citing Threats to Sovereignty and Civil Liberties
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Moscow comments on Trump’s ‘only two genders’ move

RT | January 21, 2025
The decades-long US promotion of the diversity and inclusion agenda should be investigated on an international level, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said.
Zakharova made the remarks on Tuesday, a day after newly inaugurated US President Donald Trump ended protections for transgender rights and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within the federal government.
“Can you imagine how many people’s lives have been ruined over the years of promoting this nonsense?” Zakharova wrote on Telegram.
“What should hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people do now, who have been forced to accept the ideology of amputating healthy genitals and replacing them with artificial ones?” she added.
Zakharova stated that officials in Washington have been forcing other countries “to show solidarity with what they called anti-scientific narratives,” which in essence was “the very propaganda that kills both the body and the soul.”
This “inhumane doctrine” was linked with aid, sanctions, and political and financial pressure, as well as the “humiliation of human dignity and bullying,” Zakharova claimed.
On his first day back in office, Trump repealed 78 executive orders signed by his predecessor, Joe Biden, including at least a dozen measures supporting racial equity and combating discrimination against gay and transgender people.
Federal US agencies and departments have 60 days from the order’s signing to end DEI-related practices.
The order followed a promise Trump made during his inaugural address earlier on Monday, when he vowed to end “the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life” in favor of a society that is “colorblind and merit-based.”
Trump also said it will be official US policy that “there are only two genders: male and female.”
The order is meant to create “equal treatment” and requests “a plan to dismantle the DEI bureaucracy,” a Trump aide told the New York Post. More actions on DEI are reportedly coming soon that would impact private business.
The rollback of DEI programs drew an immediate backlash from civil rights groups, who promised to “fight back against these harmful provisions.”
Some corporations, including the largest US private employer, Walmart, had already started reversing DEI initiatives in the weeks following Trump’s election in November. Meta recently dismantled its DEI department, citing a shifting legal and policy landscape. McDonald’s has scaled back diversity targets for senior leadership. Other companies such as Costco and Apple reportedly remain committed to diversity policies.









