RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.city-journal.org/article/donald-trump-dei-executive-order

Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order abolishing the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” bureaucracy in the federal government.

The move marks a stunning reversal of fortune from just four years ago, when Black Lives Matter, critical race theory, and DEI seemed unstoppable. Following the death of George Floyd, left-wing race activists made a blitz through America’s institutions, rewriting school curricula, altering government policy, and establishing DEI offices in major universities, big-city school districts, and Fortune 100 companies. The Biden administration immediately followed suit, mandating a “whole-of-government equity agenda” that entrenched DEI in the federal government.

No more. President Trump has rescinded the Biden executive order and instructed his Cabinet to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA, and ‘environmental justice’ offices and positions,” and “all ‘equity action plans,’ ‘equity’ actions, initiatives, or programs.” In other words, President Trump has signed the death warrant for DEI within the federal government.

How did we get here? Through patiently building a movement and winning the public debate. At the beginning of 2023, I worked with Florida governor Ron DeSantis to launch the “abolish DEI” campaign. We began by terminating the DEI bureaucracy at New College of Florida, a small public university in Sarasota, where I serve as a trustee. The reaction from the racialist Left was intense. Protesters descended on the campus and the left-wing media published hundreds of articles condemning the move. But we held firm and made the case that public institutions should judge individuals based on their accomplishments, rather than their ancestry.

The argument began to take hold. The polling data indicated that Americans supported a “colorblind society” over a “race-conscious society” by large margins. Even the New York Times, one of the largest boosters of left-wing racialism, started publishing pieces that criticized DEI. At the same time, the Black Lives Matter movement was ensnared in scandals and the leading intellectual voices of DEI, such as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, faced sustained public scrutiny and seemed to disappear from the spotlight.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/01/22/will-metas-shift-away-from-fact-checking-social-media-boost-free-speech-most-americans-say-yes-in-latest-ii-tipp-poll/

Meta, parent of social media giants Facebook, Instagram and Threads, has decided to make substantive changes to its fact-checking policies — changes that will mean less-onerous scrutiny of users’ posts by paid “fact-checkers,” and more by fellow readers. Is it a victory for free speech? A solid plurality of Americans say “yes,” according to the latest I&I/TIPP Poll.

Users have long complained about “woke” rules that lead to even innocuous posts being, in effect, censored by Facebook’s and Instagram’s legions of “fact-checkers.” A common complaint of users described a system that resulted in progressive politics being used as a template by which to stifle free speech.

Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg recently announced he would replace the formal fact-checking mechanism with a “community notes” system, such as the one favored by X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk.

Do Americans like the changes?

In its January 2025 national online poll, taken from Jan. 8-10, I&I/TIPP asked 1,424 adults this question about the changes to Meta’s fact-checking rules: “Do you agree or disagree that Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking practices will positively impact free speech on its platforms?”

That answer came back “yes,” but with a large share of respondents describing themselves as “not sure” yet about the changes. The poll has a margin of error of +/-2.6 percentage points.

Overall, 43% said they agreed either “strongly” (19%) or “somewhat” (24%) that Zuckerberg’s move would bolster free speech, while 32% disagreed strongly (17%) or somewhat (15%). But a sizeable 24% said they weren’t sure how the changes would impact free speech.

And how people felt about it varied by age, with younger respondents agreeing it’s a good thing, while older ones are less likely to agree. Among those 18-24 years, 50% agreed that the changes were good; for those 25-44, it was 46%; 45-64, 42%; and the most skeptical group of all was those 65 and over, with just 36% agreeing that the move will benefit free speech.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/donald-trump-inauguration-speech

As he assumed the presidency again, Donald Trump proclaimed a “revolution of common sense” in his second Inaugural Address at the U.S. Capitol. Surrounded by the political elite and the captains of Silicon Valley, the new president pledged to restore faith in American institutions and championed a “manifest destiny into the stars,” with the United States expanding its territory and even planting a flag on Mars. The speech highlighted Trump’s many contrasts with his predecessors, even as it revealed how his political model has evolved.

Many recent presidents have used their Inaugurals to offer an ambitious vision for the nation or to rearticulate the terms of the national compact. Joe Biden’s, for instance, made a case for American “unity.” Some presidents have also sounded broad ideological themes, as in George W. Bush’s 2005 Inaugural Address, which committed the United States to the “expansion of freedom in all the world.”

But a series of disappointments and an embattled sense of national identity form the backdrop for the populist disruption of which Trump has been the avatar. His first Inaugural in 2017 lamented “American carnage,” and his second picked up that theme in assailing his predecessor’s record. Two signature moments of the end of the Biden administration—Biden’s bizarre attempt to “affirm” the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution and his wave of preemptive pardons for his family and political allies—set up Trump’s denunciation of a “radical and corrupt establishment.”

Positioning himself against that establishment is essential to Trump’s outsider appeal, but his speech did not confine itself to complaint. Trump laid out a detailed set of policies that he would be implementing through executive orders.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/01/a-trump-inaugural-speech-for-a-trump-presidency/

Donald Trump’s inaugural address was functionally indistinguishable from one of his rally speeches. It wasn’t as long or discursive but was just as plain-spoken and pointed, and made exactly the same promises.

The address was another sign that Trump intends to govern the way he ran.

His critique of the status quo was stinging and harsh, while a pained Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had to sit within feet of him and endure it.

The flip side of Trump’s often-decried gloomy portrait of the present is his vaulting optimism about the future he intends to bring about. So it was with this address. As usual, he didn’t stint on his bigger-and-better superlatives. It’s going to be a new Golden Age, as “we stand on the verge of the four greatest years in American history.”

Trump described himself as an exemplar of common sense, and, indeed, on some key issues he captured the center last November. His pledges in his address to shut down the border, deport criminals, make it government policy that there are only two genders, and judge people on their merits rather than their race and gender are firmly in the middle of the American consensus, and not too long ago would have been utterly uncontroversial.

His assurances that he will build up the military, push back on electric vehicle mandates, exploit our fossil fuel resources to the maximum extent possible, and end all government pressure for censorship were welcome, as well.