White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt speaks during the daily briefing in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on February 12, 2025. (Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)
The news outlet has been barred from presidential events for refusing to call the Gulf of Mexico by the president’s chosen name, “the Gulf of America.”
Accusing the White House of a “targeted attack” on editorial independence that “strikes at the very core of the First Amendment,” The Associated Press on Friday filed a lawsuit against three Trump administration officials over its blocked access to all presidential events.
The administration announced earlier this month that AP reporters would not be permitted to cover press events at the White House, Mar-a-Lago, or on Air Force One due to its editorial decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico by the name that has been internationally recognized for more than 400 years.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January stating that the Gulf of Mexico would be renamed the Gulf of America. Trump has the authority to change a body of water’s name for official government purposes, and some bodies of water are called by different names in different countries—for example, the Gulf of California is known as the Sea of Cortez in Mexico.
The AP said it would acknowledge Trump’s chosen name for the body of water, but continue officially referring to it as the Gulf of Mexico.
“The press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government.”
As Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said this month as she threatened to sue Google for changing the Gulf of Mexico’s names in its maps feature, the U.S. does not have sovereignty over the body of water, and Trump cannot unilaterally order other entities to call it by his chosen name.
The AP on Friday said in its lawsuit that “the press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government.”
The suit names White House Chief of Staff Susan Wiles, Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who has said in briefings that it is “a fact” that the body of water off the western coast of Florida and the southern coasts of several other states is called the Gulf of America.
The news outlet called on the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. to stop the White House from blocking its journalists from gathering news at presidential events.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage at the 2025 Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference. Credit: ARC / YouTube
The Reform UK leader reiterated false climate claims at Jordan Peterson’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship event in London.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has admitted that he doesn’t know about climate science, despite claiming that politicians shouldn’t worry about man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Farage was speaking at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London today. ARC claims that it wants to help “save civilisation”, yet several of the event’s speakers have spread climate science denial.
In an interview with Canadian psychologist and ARC co-founder Jordan Peterson, Farage said claimed that sunspots and volcanoes have more impact on the climate than human-caused CO2 emissions – an opinion longdebunked by climate experts.
He added: “I’m not a scientist. I can’t tell you whether CO2 is leading to warming or not, but there are so many other massive factors.”
Despite admitting that he is not a climate expert, Farage claimed it was “absolutely nuts” that CO2 is considered to be a pollutant.
Reform UK campaigns to entirely scrap the UK’s policies to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It also proposes increased fossil fuel extraction, including the opening of new coal mines, and received at least £2.3 million (92 percent of its funding) from fossil fuel interests, polluters and climate deniers prior to the 2024 general election campaign.
As DeSmog revealed on Monday, a leaked guest list for the ARC event includes executives from oil and gas giants including BP, Koch Inc., Valero Energy, and Energy Transfer.
ARC received £1 million in 2023 from its director Paul Marshall, a hedge fund manager who owns GB News and recently bought The Spectator magazine. As revealed by DeSmog, Marshall’s hedge fund had £1.8 billion invested in fossil fuels – including in oil and gas giants Chevron, Shell, and Equinor – as of June 2023.
On 17 February, during the first day of the ARC conference, Donald Trump’s Energy Secretary Chris Wright called the UK’s 2050 net zero target “sinister”, and suggested climate action was a plot to “shrink human freedom”.
Nigel Farage and Climate Denial
Farage was a star speaker on the second day of the ARC conference at the ExCel centre in east London, during which he took part in a one-on-one interview with ARC frontman Peterson, who is a major promoter of climate science denial.
After declaring that “net zero is a complete disaster”, Farage called for dozens of “small modular nuclear reactors” across the UK. Peterson responded with a question about the science of climate change, suggesting: “Maybe it’s time to stop our obsession with carbon altogether.”
Peterson said: “I also think conceivably that the environmentalist climate scam was an offshoot of the Club of Rome Malthusian stupidity that is predicated on the presumption that resources are finite and that there’s far too many people on the planet, and there’s a terrible anti-human motivation lurking underneath all of that’s pessimistic and brutal and genocidal in its fundamental ethos.”
Farage replied: “The one thing I hear that drives me absolutely potty is that carbon dioxide is a pollutant! That’s what they tell us! That clearly is absolutely nuts. Now, there are times in our past when CO2 in the atmosphere has been much, much higher than it is today, and that’s before people drove 4×4 Chelsea tractors.”
In fact, 2024 was the hottest year on record, according to experts at the World Health Organization.
As climate scientist Dr Philipp Breul from Imperial College London has stated: “We are causing the climate to change significantly faster than it has, to the best of our knowledge, in the last million years.
“This incredibly fast rate of change is the real problem, as it leaves neither society nor the ecosystem time to adapt.”
Farage went on to say that Sir Patrick Moore, a TV astronomer, told him 20 years ago that “when it comes to carbon dioxide levels, and when it comes to warming and cooling, let me assure you that sunspot activity and underwater volcanic activity will always have a bigger impact on the environment than man himself ever can”.
“I’ve very much stuck to that view,” Farage added.
Climate scientists at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading climate science body, have stressed that “it is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet”.
Farage went on to repeat the misleading claim that only three percent of CO2 emissions are produced by humans. In fact, human activity has raised the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content by 50 percent in less than 200 years, according to NASA.
The Reform UK described himself as an “environmentalist in the old school sense and definition of that term”, complaining that “climate hysteria has blinded us to other environmental disasters such as the rape of our oceans”.
Later in the interview, Farage agreed with Peterson that “family” is of central importance for a happy society. He also said he believed in “Judeo-Christen values”, and asserted that the Conservative Party is “not remotely right-wing”.
Nigel Farage explains the politics of Reform UK: Racism, Fake anti-establishmentism, Deregulation, Corporatism, Climate Change Denial, Mysogyny and Transphobia.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
“I think you really are the best hope for Germany,” Elon Musk told the thousands attending the far-right Alternative for Germany party’s rally on January 25. France 24 English/YouTube
The tech billionaire is invigorating groups in the U.S. and Europe aiming to sabotage climate action, a DeSmog media analysis shows.
In December, a Chicago-based organization called the Heartland Institute, which for decades has attempted to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, devoted an episode of its daily podcast to Elon Musk.
As recently as 2022, Heartland figures had ridiculed the Tesla CEO as a member of the “billionaire climate elite” based on Musk’s claim that as a top manufacturer of electric vehicles, his company was “doing the most to solve climate change.”
But perhaps, the podcast guests speculated, Musk was finally “abandoning the climate cult.”
The episode was recorded after Musk had given upwards of $277 million to get Donald Trump elected president, argued that “we don’t need to rush” on addressing climate change, and vowed to cut $2 trillion of federal government spending. One guest on the show was cautiously optimistic, saying: “I’m coming around on Musk.”
Heartland, which didn’t respond to a request for comment, isn’t the only anti-climate group embracing Musk these days.
DeSmog journalists in the European Union, the UK and the United States reviewed public materials from prominent climate deniers referencing Musk over recent months. Taken as a whole, these podcasts, opinion pieces, social media posts, newsletters, YouTube videos, and interviews with legacy media reveal an unmistakable trend: Musk’s public embrace of right-wing populists is invigorating a transatlantic movement aiming to spread doubt about the reality of climate change and sabotage action on the crisis.
His interventions ahead of Germany’s elections on Sunday have energized the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, which says that climate policy “threatens our freedom,” a January poll suggests.
His courtship, along with Trump, of hardline leaders in Europe threatens to torpedo hopes of progressive climate action by the EU, think tanks warn.
And in the U.S., Musk’s ongoing war against the federal bureaucracy “erodes our collective ability to adapt to climate impacts,” Amanda Fencl, director of climate science for the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists, has warned.
Some longtime climate deniers are thrilled, however, recognising that even a brief endorsement from Musk to his 217.9 million followers on X — the social media platform formerly called Twitter, which he bought in 2022 — can confer instant visibility and excitement.
“We welcome Elon Musk into the climate red pill group,” Climate Depot executive director Marc Moranostated in December, using a phrase popular among Trump supporters that refers to rejecting liberal viewpoints.
Musk, contacted via Tesla, did not respond to a detailed list of questions about his shifting climate views.
‘Windmills of Shame’
When Germans vote for a new government on Sunday, the EU’s most populous country is widely predicted to shift to the right. Leading the polls at about 29 percent of voters is the centre-right Christian Democratic Union, or CDU, which intends to prioritise economic growth over accelerated climate measures endorsed by the ruling Greens and Social Democrats, or SPD.
Less certain is the influence that the surging far-right AfD will have on the next German government. On X, Musk has openly endorsed and platformed the party, which wants to ditch Germany’s climate commitments.
As migration and economic stagnation dominate German politics, the AfD is now polling close to 21 percent — potentially doubling the 10 percent of votes it won in the last national elections in 2021. The party states that the level of human contribution to global warming is “not scientifically proven,” and opposes state support for renewable energy and electrification of heat and transport, while advocating for Germany’s gas and coal power sectors.
The CDU says that it will not form a coalition government involving the AfD, and maintains its commitment to Germany’s 2045 net-zero emissions target. But despite its opposition status, the AfD is already shaping national political discourse — and even decision-making.
While the CDU and Germany’s other mainstream parties have traditionally refused to vote with the AfD due to its extreme stances on immigration and Germany’s Nazi past, the CDU broke this so-called “firewall” last month by voting with the AfD on a resolution to restrict migration.
Musk has sided with the AfD on its hard-line immigration stance and nationalist messaging. In December, Musk openly endorsed the party, shocking liberal Germans by writing on X that “only AfD can save Germany.” He went on to join a 9 January livestream with the AfD co-leader Alice Weidel, who has attracted controversy for Islamaphobic remarks, such as in a 2018 Bundestag speech when she said “burqas, headscarf girls, publicly-supported knifemen, and other ‘good-for-nothings’ will not secure our prosperity, economic growth, and the social state.”
In terms of climate policy, Weidel has suggested that if the AfD takes power in Germany, it could dismantle wind turbines, recently calling them “windmills of shame,” The wind sector produced a third of the country’s electricity last year.
During their conversation, both Musk and Weidel expressed support for nuclear power — with Musk also saying he was a “big fan” of solar energy — and Weidel stating that Germany’s CO2 footprint was “obnoxiously very very high.” Both steered clear of the AfD’s official climate-denialist party platform.
Then, less than two weeks later, Musk sparked a global furore by raising his arm to the crowd at Trump’s January 20 inauguration in a gesture that many likened to a Nazi salute. The Amadeu Antonio Stiftung, a German organisation which advocates against right-wing extremism and anti-Semitism, saw no ambivalence in Musk’s move, describing it as a “Hitler salute.” Musk responded to the outpouring of criticism by posting on X: “The ‘everyone is Hitler’ attack is sooo tired.”
Five days after Trump was sworn-in, Musk ramped up his support for the AfD by addressing a party rally via videolink. He urged supporters to “take pride” in being German over “some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything”, and told them that there’s “too much of a focus on past guilt” — remarks condemned by Polish prime minister Donald Tusk.
YouTube Influencer
Musk had previously enjoyed support from Germany’s centrist parties. When Tesla opened a multi-billion dollar electric car factory in the State of Brandenburg in 2022, the move was billed as a boost to both the country’s manufacturing sector and climate credentials. But during his January livestream with Weidel, Musk expressed his disdain for the bureaucratic procedures needed to build the Tesla factory, which he said amounted to “25,000 pages”.
Musk’s public support for the AfD can be traced back to his interactions with Naomi Seibt, a 24-year-old German influencer who built a sizeable social media following attacking “climate alarmism” and cultivating a brand as the anti-green doppelganger of Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. Her rise to prominence was aided by the Heartland Institute, which featured her in a YouTube video it published in February 2020. Seibt has since told Reuters that the organisation had paid her $4,000 a month for three months as a “scholarship.” (Seibt no longer appears to be affiliated with the group).
German influencer Naomi Seibt appears on the Heartland Institute’s YouTube channel on February 11, 2020. Credit: Heartland Institute/YouTube
When Seibt posted on X last June that she’d voted for the AfD in the EU elections, which saw the formerly fringe party rise to 16 percent of the total vote — its best-ever result — Musk began sending her private messages asking for more information, according to Seibt. “And then he started following me,” Seibt told the BBC, noting that “it took him many months to decide to support the AfD.”
Musk’s backing could boost a party that’s heavily critical of the country’s decarbonization efforts. A January poll of German voters from the U.S.-based Democracy Institute think tank suggested that 28 percent of respondents say they are “more likely” to vote AfD due to Musk’s support, while 23 percent said it made their support “less likely.”
Germany’s center-right and center-left leadership have condemned Musks’s interventions. Friedrich Merz, head of the CDU, told The Wall Street Journal last week that Musk would face consequences for boosting the AfD. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, a member of the centre-left SPD, last month called Musk’s support for European far-right parties “disgusting.”
The new Trump administration is already mirroring the billionaire’s embrace of the AfD. Last week, U.S. Vice-President JD Vance met with Weidel, the AfD co-chief, on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich, while snubbing Scholz.
With the U.S. playing a major role in German trade and security, this budding transatlantic alliance could bode poorly for climate action in Europe’s biggest economy.
Neither Seibt nor the AfD responded to questions.
Courting the European Far-Right
Musk’s electrifying impact on the AfD builds on his years of dabbling in far-right politics in other European countries.
In December 2023, Musk appeared as a guest of honour at an annual convention in Rome hosted by the Brothers of Italy, the right-wing populist party of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who had said earlier that year that “ultra-ecological fanaticism” was an economic threat.
Santiago Abascal, leader of Spain’s far-right Vox party, also attended the 2023 convention. He had recently predicted that Spanish citizens would hang their current Socialist Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, by his feet, remarks that were so controversial that some Brothers of Italy members asked for his invitation to be withdrawn, the Spanish newspaper El País reported.
But whereas Abascal’s presence threatened to create divisions at the event, “Elon Musk’s case is somewhat different, arousing only enthusiasm and selfie fervor,” noted El País. “The tycoon is nowadays the darling of almost all those on the ultra-right who seek media and economic backing, and a cutting-edge image.”
A month later, in January 2024, Musk again signalled his interest in European politics.
With German farmers protesting the end of government diesel fuel subsidies and a new tax on agricultural vehicles, Anthony Lee, who had stood for the European Parliament as a candidate for Free Voters, a German conservative populist party, gave an interview to right-wing Dutch influencer Eva Vlaardingerbroek. Lee told Vlaardingerbroek that politicians “want our land to build industry, houses. Houses for refugees, whoever, I don’t care what for.”
After Musk reacted to the video on X, writing “Support the farmers!” Lee said in a video message that “I think it’s just awesome that Elon Musk himself tweeted this…This is only possible because we stand together.” The video was viewed over 200,000 times. Lee did not respond to a request for comment.
A year later, Musk was rubbing shoulders at Trump’s inauguration with a who’s-who of right-wing European politicians, including Spain’s Abascal, France’s Éric Zemmour and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, all of whom have questioned the science and urgency of climate change.
Analysts with the independent European Policy Center think tank in Brussels sees the inauguration guestlist as a worrying sign that Trump and Musk are helping strengthen “ideological ties between significant radical forces on both sides of the Atlantic.” They are concerned about the impact a second Trump administration may have on a host of EU-wide initiatives, including a raft of climate reforms known as the European Green Deal.
“The most concerning possibility,” the analysts argue, is “Trump’s probable exploitation of far-right leaders or governments to block EU policies or advance his agenda.”
Musk’s Shift to ‘Climate Skeptic’
For years, Musk enjoyed a reputation as a crusading green energy entrepreneur on a mission to render the internal combustion engine obsolete, celebrated by climate activists and cleantech investors alike — despite growing signs of his right-ward political leanings. As recently as last August, the online news outlet E&E News ran a story speculating that “Musk might be the only person Trump listens to on climate.”
But Musk’s politics and business interests seemed to decisively converge during a 2024 meeting of Tesla executives in Palo Alto, California, where he shelved plans to develop a more budget-friendly compact car that could be marketed to lower-income customers around the world, according to a report in the Washington Post. This had previously been a key part of Tesla’s plan to “accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”
Instead, Musk approved a plan worth billions of dollars to purchase computer chips that could improve Tesla’s luxury vehicles, the Washington Post report said. Musk had shifted from calling for “a popular uprising” against the fossil fuel industry in 2016 to stating that there were more important global problems to address.
In a livestream with Trump last year, Musk stated that “we don’t need to rush” in fixing climate change.
This also happens to be the message of Bjørn Lomborg, a longtime Danish climate crisis denier (and apparent “friend” of Trump administration energy secretary Chris Wright) whose 2023 book Best Things First argued that there were more important global priorities to address than climate change. According to a recent edition of Lomborg’s newsletter, the Canadian conservative influencer Jordan Peterson shared a copy of Lomborg’s book with Musk in 2024.
Within U.S. denial networks, some leaders link Musk’s shift to the flourishing of anti-climate messages on Twitter after the billionaire purchased the platform, and renamed it X. “I mean, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of climate skeptics on X/Twitter, and they’re constantly posting content that we put out here,” the Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts argued on the group’s podcast. “Musk has had to have seen some of this stuff.”
Musk’s former critics in climate denial circles now see him as the best bet for implementing their most extreme ideas. Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency has been attempting to shut down key climate-related agencies like the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID.
On the website of the conservative group CFACT, prominent denier Paul Dreissen — who previously accused Musk of holding “sanctimonious” views on “the alleged climate crisis” — has offered policy suggestions to the billionaire as he wages war on the federal bureaucracy: End subsidies for renewable energy; terminate funding for environmental and climate justice programs; and require applicants for climate research funding to “provide computer codes and analyses so that reviewers can view and evaluate their work.”
Parts of Musk’s plan seem to rely on two recent, pro-industry Supreme Court decisions to unwind regulatory authority long held by federal agencies — an overarching goal of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 initiative, retooled with Musk’s Silicon Valley spin.
If successful, these cuts will dismantle decades of clean air and water protections, and hamstring the country’s ability to respond proactively to the worsening climate crisis, said Fencl, the director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Hurricane Helene made landfall in Florida in October 2024, but caused deadly and destructive flooding hundreds of miles from the coast due to extreme rain. At least 219 people died, and the damages are estimated at $78.7 billion. Credit: PBS NewsHour/YouTube.
“Our infrastructure systems are not going to withstand the climate impacts we’re expecting, and taking away the government’s spending in these spaces really erodes our collective ability to adapt to climate impacts,” Fencl said.
Raising the UK’s Political Temperature
Since throwing his fortune and social media influence behind Trump, Musk has teased the possibility of attempting a similar campaign in the UK.
In December, Musk met with Reform UK leader Farage, who also co-founded and formerly led the Brexit Party, at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
The two were in talks about Musk offering a £100 million (over $125 million) donation to Reform, The Times of London reported. Farage has said he finds it “extraordinary that people call carbon dioxide a pollutant, and Reform UK’s latest party manifesto recycles a long-debunked claim that “scientists disagree as to how much” human activity is causing climate change. So such a donation would have been a major investment by Musk in transatlantic climate denial.
Then, in January, Musk used X to call for the release of Tommy Robinson, a far-right British influencer serving an 18-month contempt of court sentence for making false accusations about a Syrian schoolboy. When Farage rejected his calls to join forces with Robinson, Musk tweeted that, “the Reform Party needs a new leader. Farage doesn’t have what it takes.”
Farage was not sufficiently swayed by Musk’s comments to support Robinson’s return, although he struck a conciliatory note by saying the tech mogul didn’t know “the full story” about the provocateur’s criminal past. By the end of January, Farage was signalling to the press that his rift with Musk was over, telling The New York Times that the billionaire was still open to donating to Reform UK. “We’ve got very similar goals on some areas, slightly different emphases in others,” Farage said, adding that Musk was sharing valuable information about how Trump won over swing voters during the U.S. election.
Farage is also collaborating with the Heartland Institute, which has claimed credit for working with hard-right parties in Austria and Hungary to attempt to stall the EU’s Nature Restoration Law, which sets targets for restoring damaged ecosystems, as well as other green policies. Farage helped launch the pro-Trump institute’s new UK-Europe branch in December.
Farage’s newly formed Reform UK won just five of the 650 seats in the lower house of parliament in last year’s elections, and was unsuccessful in generating a backlash against the country’s net-zero emissions goal. Nevertheless, the party appears to be pushing the historically weakened Tories to the right on climate change — echoing Farage’s previous strategy to rally support for the 2016 Brexit referendum.
Regardless of how much tangible backing Musk might provide to right-wing figures in the UK, his winning bet on Trump, and assault on federal government spending, has inspired Farage and his allies with a sense of the possible. “There’s a heck of a lot we’ve learned from that we will implement over the next few years,” Farage told The New York Times.
Some European leaders are looking for ways to neutralize Musk’s efforts to sway voters.
In January, as Musk posted false allegations that UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer had let child sex abusers escape justice, France called on the European Commission to take action against Musk and X for election interference. According to The Financial Times, Musk was also investigating how to get Starmer out of office before the country’s next election, and replace his center-left government with right-wingers.
Members of the European Parliament, who are elected representatives of their respective nations, are also criticizing the Commission for failing to use its authority under the EU’s Digital Services Act to investigate and fine Musk and X, as well as other major social media platforms, for spreading disinformation.
Asked about Musk’s tirade during a public event in January, Starmer did not name the billionaire directly in his response. “Those that are spreading lies and misinformation as far and as wide as possible, they’re not interested in victims,” said Starmer. “They’re interested in themselves.”
Nigel Farage explains the politics of Reform UK: Racism, Fake anti-establishmentism, Deregulation, Corporatism, Climate Change Denial, Mysogyny and Transphobia.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
A protester holds a placard outside of the Pennsylvania Capitol during a #50501 protest on Wednesday, February 5, 2025. (Photo by Paul Weaver/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
If anyone celebrating this attack against transgender people were to spend time with the parents, children, and doctors affected, their feelings might change.
President Donald Trump’s executive order prohibiting any hospital that receives federal funds from practicing gender-affirming care callously disregards the needs of children who are both gender and neurodiverse, putting them and their families at risk. If anyone celebrating this order were to spend time with the parents, children, and doctors affected, their feelings might change. They should meet Pearl who before receiving treatment was failing out of high school, contemplating suicide, and rarely left the house, and is now attending community college, teaching herself another language, and has developed deep friendships. Or the mathematically-gifted Ellen who after two deep depressive episodes in the last three years, finds safety, companionship, and stability in her gender support group. Or Jacob, a role model to all that meet him, who is attending college out of state and just performed in a concert on campus.
For three years my husband and I have been part of a support group with the parents of these children, who range in age from 14 to 25. Many are now scrambling for information to determine how far the order extends; where one can continue to receive care; what care, if any, the doctors they’ve trusted, relied on, and put faith in for years can still provide. Parents are counting prescription refills, checking if pharmacies will still honor them, searching for providers not impacted by the order, and compiling a list of states they could afford to travel to if other options don’t materialize. Some fear the order will destroy their children’s delicate mental health. Others fear it is a death sentence.
Our “community” includes some of the most thoughtful and loving caregivers I have ever known. Our children, who all have autism spectrum disorder (ASD), see and experience the world through a different yet remarkable lens. While some focus on their deficits, we see their creativity, honesty, strong sense of justice, loyalty, and enhanced focus as superpowers. But none of us deny that what makes them unique also presents challenges, including struggling with social interactions, poor executive functioning skills, or developmental delays. One challenge they all share is dealing with their gender diversity.
These are parents not boogeymen. These children are lovingly cared for and listened to, not abused.
Those with ASD are three to six times more likely than the general population to be gender diverse1—the umbrella term that includes non-binary and transgender. On top of their social, developmental, or communication issues, the added stress of feeling uncomfortable in their own bodies deeply impacts their well-being. We often talk about their “dark periods” when they’ve experienced debilitating depression, suicidal ideation, and elevated anxiety. Like any good parent, we sought advice from trusted medical professionals who provide the standard of care supported by leading medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Our children see a multidisciplinary team of fully licensed, board-certified, highly trained pediatric specialists at a world-renowned hospital. These neuropsychologists, psychiatrists, gynecologists, and social workers coordinate care plans tailored to each child, considering their unique developmental, mental, and emotional health needs. Every child is evaluated regularly over extended periods of time. The medical care they receive may include mental health treatment, executive functioning courses, and in-person or online groups where they play games like D&D and socialize with like-minded youth. Some children who are past puberty receive hormone therapy after an extensive evaluation process. No child under the age of 18 is provided with gender-affirming surgery.
Parents in our group run the gamut. Some struggled to accept their child’s gender diversity or ASD diagnosis. Some oppose using hormone therapy, despite their child’s repeated demands, because they believe their child couldn’t handle the responsibility. Some have once needed to hospitalize their suicidal children, but have watched them flourish since starting them on hormone therapy. All struggling and questioning. But no care decisions are made without extensive consultation with their doctors, whose paramount concern is that our children are happy, healthy, productive, and thriving.
My child does not receive hormone therapy or other treatments outlined in the order. I do not, cannot, fully understand the magnitude of their pain. All I can do is stand witness to this action’s cruelty. These are parents not boogeymen. These children are lovingly cared for and listened to, not abused. These doctors have dedicated their lives to improving the mental and physical health of some of the most vulnerable among us. They are saving them, not experimenting on them. We are all good, intelligent, informed, and, now, scared people, whose greatest concern is the welfare of our children.
Editor’s Note: To protect privacy all names and identifying details of those mentioned in this piece have been changed.
Donald Trump decrees forbidden terms denying sexual diversityElon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
dizzy: I have somehow managed to post this to the non-current version of this site. There are 2 versions atm because I have changed my web host and DNS needs to propogate so that it all points to my new web host.
News outlets often preferred euphemisms like “displacing” or “resettling” to the more accurate “ethnic cleansing, as in this CBC headline (2/4/25).
Earlier this month, President Donald Trump said that the US will “take over the Gaza Strip” and “own” it for the “long-term” (AP, 2/5/25), and that its Palestinian inhabitants will be “permanently” exiled (AP, 2/4/25). Subsequently, when reporters asked Trump whether Palestinians would have the right to return to Gaza under his plan, he said “no” (BBC, 2/10/25).
After Trump’s remarks, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres (Reuters, 2/5/25) said “it is essential to avoid any form of ethnic cleansing.”
Navi Pillay (Politico, 2/9/25), chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, said that
Trump is woefully ignorant of international law and the law of occupation. Forcible displacement of an occupied group is an international crime, and amounts to ethnic cleansing.
Human Rights Watch (2/5/25) said that, if Trump’s plan were implemented, it would “amount to an alarming escalation of forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza.”
Clarity in the minority
Amnesty International (2/5/25) called Trump’s proposal to forcibly transfer the population of Gaza a flagrant violation of international law”—but the phrase “international law” was usually missing from news reports on the plan.
I used the news media aggregator Factiva to survey coverage of Trump’s remarks from the day that he first made them, February 4 through February 12. In that period, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post combined to run 145 pieces with the words “Gaza” and “Trump.” Of these, 19 contained the term “ethnic cleansing” or a variation on the phrase. In other words, 87% of the articles these outlets published on Trump’s plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza chose not to call it ethnic cleansing.
A handful of other pieces used language that captures the wanton criminality of Trump’s scheme reasonably well. Three articles used “forced displacement,” or slight deviations from the word, while five others used “expel” and another nine used “expulsion.” Two of the articles said “forced transfer,” or a minor variation of that. In total, therefore, 38 of the 145 articles (26 percent) employ “ethnic cleansing” or the above-mentioned terms to communicate to readers that Trump wants to make Palestinians leave their homes so that the US can take Gaza from them.
Furthermore, the term “international law” appears in only 27 of the 145 articles, which means that 81% failed to point out to readers that what Trump is proposing is a “flagrant violation of international law” (Amnesty International, 2/5/25).
A ‘plan to free Palestinians’
A Wall Street Journal op-ed (2/5/25) hailed “Trump’s Plan to Free Palestinians From Gaza”—in the same sense that the Trail of Tears “freed” the Cherokee from Georgia.
Several commentators in the corporate media endorsed Trump’s racist fever dream, in some cases through circumlocutions and others quite bluntly. Elliot Kaufman (Wall Street Journal, 2/5/25) called Trump’s imperial hallucination a “plan to free Palestinians from Gaza.”
While the Journal’s editorial board (2/5/25) called what Trump wants to do “preposterous,” the authors nonetheless put “ethnic cleansing” in scare quotes, as if that’s not an apt description. The paper asked, “Is his idea so much worse than the status quo that the rest of the world is offering?”
Sadanand Dhume (Wall StreetJournal, 2/12/25) wondered why “If Indians and Pakistanis Can Relocate, Why Can’t Gazans?” To bolster his case, Dhume noted that 2 million people died as a result of the India-Pakistan partition, and cited other shining moments in 20th century history, such as Uganda’s expulsion of Indians in the 1970s. That these authors implicitly or explicitly advocate Trump’s plan for mass, racist violence demonstrates that they see Palestinians as subhuman impediments to US/Israeli designs on Palestine and the region.
Bret Stephens (New York Times, 2/11/25) wrote that
Trump also warned Jordan and Egypt that he would cut off American aid if they refused to accept Gazan refugees, adding that those refugees may not have the right to return to Gaza. The president’s threats are long overdue.
Ethnically cleansing the West Bank
Al Jazeera (2/26/24): “Settler violence is a central part of the Israeli state’s policy and plan to ethnically cleanse the occupied Palestinian territory.”
A similar pattern exists in coverage of the West Bank, where evidence of ethnic cleansing is hard to miss, but corporate media appears to be finding ways to do just that.
Legal scholars Alice Panepinto and Triestino Mariniello wrote an article for Al Jazeera (2/26/24) headlined “Settler Violence: Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing Plan for the West Bank”:
Supported by the Israeli security forces and aided and abetted by the government, settler violence is a central part of the Israeli state’s policy and plan to ethnically cleanse the occupied Palestinian territory in order to establish full sovereignty over it and enable settlement expansion.
The authors noted that, at the time they wrote their article, 16 Palesti nian communities in the West Bank had been forcibly transferred since October 7, 2023.
In October 2024, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese found that throughout the Gaza genocide, “Israeli forces and violent settlers” have “escalated patterns of ethnic cleansing and apartheid in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.” In the first 12 months after October 7, Albanese reported, “at least 18 communities were depopulated under the threat of lethal force, effectively enabling the colonization of large tracts” of the West Bank.
Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (2/10/25) said that Israel’s “latest ethnic cleansing efforts” entail “forcibly uproot[ing] thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank,” accompanied by
the bombing and burning of residential buildings and infrastructure, the cutting off of water, electricity and communications supplies, and a killing policy that has resulted in the deaths of 30 Palestinians…over the course of 19 days.
According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) (2/10/25), Israeli military operations in Jenin camp, which expanded to Tulkarm, Nur Shams and El Far’a, displaced 40,000 Palestinian refugees between January 21 and February 10.
Unnoteworthy violations
I used Factiva to search New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post coverage and found that, since Panepinto and Mariniello’s analysis was published just under a year ago, the three newspapers have combined to run 693 articles that mention the West Bank. Thirteen of these include some form of the term “ethnic cleansing,” a mere 2%. Nine more articles use “forced displacement,” or a variation on the phrase, 31 use “expel,” 11 use “expulsion” and five use some variety of “forced transfer.”
Thus, 69 of the 693 Times, Journal and Post articles that mention the West Bank use these terms to clearly describe people being violently driven from their homes—just 10%. Many of the articles that address the West Bank are also about Gaza, so the 69 articles using this language don’t necessarily apply it to the West Bank.
Of the 693 Times, Journal and Post pieces that refer to the West Bank, 106 include the term “international law.” Evidently, the authors and editors who worked on 85% of the papers’ articles that discuss the West Bank did not consider it noteworthy that Israel is engaged in egregious violations of international law in the territory.
‘Battling local militants’
The Washington Post (2/2/25) captioned this image of IDF bombing with Israel’s claim that it was “destroying buildings used by Palestinian militants.”
Rather than equip readers to understand the larger picture in which events in the West Bank unfold, much of the coverage treats incidents in the territory discretely. For instance, the Wall Street Journal (1/22/25) published a report on Israel’s late January attacks on the West Bank. In the piece’s 18th paragraph, it cited the Palestinian Authority saying the Israeli operations “displaced families and destroyed civilian properties.” In the 24th paragraph, the article also quoted UNRWA director Roland Friedrich, saying that Jenin had become “nearly uninhabitable,” and that “some 2,000 families have been displaced from the area since mid-December.” Palestinians being driven from their homes are an afterthought for the article’s authors, who do nothing to put this forced displacement in the longer-term context of Israel’s US-backed ethnic cleansing.
A Washington Post report (2/2/25) on Jenin says in its first paragraph that the fighting is occurring “where [Israeli] troops have been battling local militants.” The article then describes Palestinian “homes turned to ash and rubble, cars destroyed and small fires still burning amid the debris.” It cited the Palestinian Health Ministry noting that “at least five people were killed in Israeli strikes in the Jenin area, including a 16-year-old.”
Establishing a “troops vs. militants” frame at the outset of the article suggested that that is the lens through which the death and destruction in Jenin should be understood, rather than one in which a racist colonial enterprise is seeking to ethnically cleanse the Indigenous population resisting the initiative.
The rights of ‘neighbors’
This New York Times piece (2/4/25) acknowledges that Israeli settlements have “steadily eroded the land accessible to Palestinians”—but doesn’t call this process ethnic cleansing.
The New York Times (2/4/25) published an article on Republican bills that would require US government documents to refer to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria,” the name that expansionist Zionists prefer. The report discusses how Trump’s return to office “has emboldened supporters of Israeli annexation of the occupied territory.”
The piece notes that hundreds of thousands of Israelis have “settled” the West Bank since Israel occupied it in 1967, and that Palestinians living there have fewer rights than their Israeli “neighbors.” The author points out that “the growing number and size of the settlements have steadily eroded the land accessible to Palestinians.”
Yet the article somehow fails to mention a crucial part of this dynamic, namely Israel violently displacing Palestinians from their West Bank homes. Leaving out that vital information fails means that readers are not a comprehensive account of the ethnic cleansing backdrop against which the Republican bills are playing out.
Recent coverage of Gaza and the West Bank illustrates that, while corporate media occasionally outright call for expelling Palestinians from their land, more often the way these outlets support ethnic cleansing is by declining to call it ethnic cleansing.
FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
