The following comment was posted, showing how Trump’s list of banned words could be used creatively.
Psychology professor here. My new email sig is below. Feel free to borrow or adapt (no attribution needed). My version has all the banned words in bold italic purple. (But the bold italic purple disappeared when the comment was posted.)
Join me, activists and advocates, in the project of smashing barriers, interrupting oppression, searching out our own biases, respecting pronouns, increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace, and fighting for social justice. Let us join in allyship and provide culturally responsive, identity-affirming care to marginalized, underserved, and/or vulnerable populations. We will think historically and systemically from an intersectional, feminist, anti-racist, anti-colonial position. We will celebrate our diverse backgrounds and cultural differences. We will fight for accessible mental health care and embrace climate science. We will challenge institutional racism and call out hate speech. We will not tolerate discrimination against people, whether the discriminatory words or actions are based on race, ethnicity, citizenship, country of origin, sex, gender, sexual preference, (dis)ability, religious beliefs, socioeconomic status, or any other aspects of our cultural identities. We are a nation of indigenous people and immigrants. Harm to one of us is harm to all of us. WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED — especially in and around the Gulf of Mexico.
Jan Resseger reflects on the Trump administration’s determination to eliminate not only to eliminate programs based on “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” but the words themselves. Those three words must be expunged from our vocabularity. We must not recognize that there is diversity of people, even within the same religion or race. We must not strive for equity, which means that everyone has an equal chance to thrive. When they don’t thrive, we ask why. But we mustn’t care anymore.
Inclusion is the third “dirty” word that must be extirpated, inclusion means “all.” Remember when you recited the Pledge of Allegiance in school? I do. We said, “with liberty and justice for all.” I suppose it will be changed now to “with liberty and justice for some.”
Read Jan’s post. As always, it is thoughtful, incisive and well researched.
Have faith. This madness and meanness will come to an end.
In a startling display of pettiness and vengeance, Trump lashed out at two law firms that dared to represent his critics. This is not normal. Law firms don’t get punished because of whom they represent. But to Trump, everything is personal. Anyone who is not on his side is an enemy. Anyone who represents his enemy is his enemy and should expect vengeance to rain down on them.
President Trump signed an executive orderon Thursday seeking to severely punish the law firm Perkins Coie by stripping its lawyers of security clearances and access to government buildings and officials — a form of payback for its legal work for Democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign.
With the order, Perkins Coie becomes the second such firm to be targeted by the president. Late last month, he signed a similar memorandum attacking Covington & Burling, which has done pro bono legal work for Jack Smith, who as special counsel pursued two separate indictments of Mr. Trump.
While the Covington memorandum sought to strip clearances and contracts from that firm, the Perkins Coie order goes much further, seeking to also limit its lawyers’ access to federal buildings, officials and jobs in a way that could cast a chilling effect over the entire legal profession.
The president’s animosity toward Perkins Coie dates back eight years, to when two lawyers at the firm, Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann, played roles in what eventually became an F.B.I. investigation to determine if anyone on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign conspired with Russian agents to influence the outcome of that election. Both lawyers left that firm years ago.
If Trump had his way, any newspaper or network or cable station that criticized him would lose its license, any TV journalist or writer would lose their job. Any criticism of him would be banned. Anyone who abetted a critic would be punished.
There are words for such behavior: censorship. Fascist. Dictator. Thin-skinned. Authoritarian.
Under the direct command of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Defense Department is purging thousands of images that violate Trump’s order to remove any reference to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Trump wants to eliminate anything that references LGBT issues, as well as images that call attention to women or African Americans.
Why ban any images if the airplane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima? It’s not because of moral revulsion or shame but because of the airplane’s offensive name: Ebola Gay. Can’t say “gay,” even it refers to an airplane. Open the link to see the censored images. Deleting them is the height of stupidity.
WASHINGTON (AP) — References to a World War II Medal of Honor recipient, the Enola Gay aircraft that dropped an atomic bomb on Japan and the first women to pass Marine infantry training are among the tens of thousands of photos and online posts marked for deletion as the Defense Department works to purge diversity, equity and inclusion content, according to a database obtained by The Associated Press.
The database, which was confirmed by U.S. officials and published by AP, includes more than 26,000 images that have been flagged for removal across every military branch. But the eventual total could be much higher.
One official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details that have not been made public, said the purge could delete as many as 100,000 images or posts in total, when considering social media pages and other websites that are also being culled for DEI content. The official said it’s not clear if the database has been finalized.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had given the military until Wednesday to remove content that highlights diversity efforts in its ranks following President Donald Trump’s executive order ending those programs across the federal government.
The vast majority of the Pentagon purge targets women and minorities, including notable milestones made in the military. And it also removes a large number of posts that mention various commemorative months — such as those for Black and Hispanic people and women.
In this image provided by the U.S. Air Force, armorers and other ground personnel undergo training at Chanute Field, Ill., during World War II (U.S. Air Force via AP)
In some cases, photos seemed to be flagged for removal simply because their file included the word ”gay,” including service members with that last name and an image of the B-29 aircraft Enola Gay, which dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II.
In this image provided by the U.S. Air Force, Staff Sgt. Krysteena Scales, a 816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron Flying Crew Chief, performs pre-flight checks before departing on a mission in a C-17 Globemaster III, March 19, 2009, at an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia. (Senior Airman Andrew Satran/U.S. Air Force via AP)Read More
Several photos of an Army Corps of Engineers dredging project in California were marked for deletion, apparently because a local engineer in the photo had the last name Gay. And a photo of Army Corps biologists was on the list, seemingly because it mentioned they were recording data about fish — including their weight, size, hatchery and gender.
In addition, some photos of the Tuskegee Airmen, the nation’s first Black military pilots who served in a segregated WWII unit, were listed on the database, but those may likely be protected due to historical content.
The Air Force briefly removed new recruit training courses that included videos of the Tuskegee Airmen soon after Trump’s order. That drew the White House’s ire over “malicious compliance,” and the Air Force quickly reversed the removal.
Many of the images listed in the database already have been removed. Others were still visible Thursday, and it’s not clear if they will be taken down at some point or be allowed to stay, including images with historical significance such as those of the Tuskegee Airmen.
This image provided by the U.S. Marine Corps shows World War II Medal of Honor recipient Pfc. Harold Gonsalves during World War II. (U.S. Marine Corps via AP)
Asked about the database, Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot said in a statement, “We are pleased by the rapid compliance across the Department with the directive removing DEI content from all platforms. In the rare cases that content is removed that is out of the clearly outlined scope of the directive, we instruct components accordingly.”
He noted that Hegseth has declared that “DEI is dead” and that efforts to put one group ahead of another through DEI programs erodes camaraderie and threatens mission execution.
Some images aren’t gone
In some cases, the removal was partial. The main page in a post titled “Women’s History Month: All-female crew supports warfighters” was removed. But at least one of the photos in that collection about an all-female C-17 crew could still be accessed. A shot from the Army Corps of Engineers titled “Engineering pioneer remembered during Black History Month” was deleted.
Other photos flagged in the database but still visible Thursday included images of the World War II Women Air Service Pilots and one of U.S. Air Force Col. Jeannie Leavitt, the country’s first female fighter pilot.
Also still visible was an image of then-Pfc. Christina Fuentes Montenegro becoming one of the first three women to graduate from the Marine Corps’ Infantry Training Battalion and an image of Marine Corps World War II Medal of Honor recipient Pfc. Harold Gonsalves.
It was unclear why some other images were removed, such as a Marine Corps photo titled “Deadlift contenders raise the bar pound by pound” or a National Guard website image called “Minnesota brothers reunite in Kuwait.”
Why the database?
The database of the 26,000 images was created to conform with federal archival laws, so if the services are queried in the future, they can show how they are complying with the law, the U.S. official said. But it may be difficult to ensure the content was archived because the responsibility to ensure each image was preserved was the responsibility of each individual unit.
Reporters at The New York Timespored through 5,000 pages from various federal agencies and found that the following words had been removed from government websites and publications. As the article points out, Trump and Musk frequently claim to be champions of “free speech,” but they have no problem censoring words and ideas that offend them.
As President Trump seeks to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives, agencies have flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid, according to a compilation of government documents.
accessible
activism
activists
advocacy
advocate
advocates
affirming care
all-inclusive
allyship
anti-racism
antiracist
assigned at birth
assigned female at birth
assigned male at birth
at risk
barrier
barriers
belong
bias
biased
biased toward
biases
biases towards
biologically female
biologically male
BIPOC
Black
breastfeed + people
breastfeed + person
chestfeed + people
chestfeed + person
clean energy
climate crisis
climate science
commercial sex worker
community diversity
community equity
confirmation bias
cultural competence
cultural differences
cultural heritage
cultural sensitivity
culturally appropriate
culturally responsive
DEI
DEIA
DEIAB
DEIJ
disabilities
disability
discriminated
discrimination
discriminatory
disparity
diverse
diverse backgrounds
diverse communities
diverse community
diverse group
diverse groups
diversified
diversify
diversifying
diversity
enhance the diversity
enhancing diversity
environmental quality
equal opportunity
equality
equitable
equitableness
equity
ethnicity
excluded
exclusion
expression
female
females
feminism
fostering inclusivity
GBV
gender
gender based
gender based violence
gender diversity
gender identity
gender ideology
gender-affirming care
genders
Gulf of Mexico
hate speech
health disparity
health equity
hispanic minority
historically
identity
immigrants
implicit bias
implicit biases
inclusion
inclusive
inclusive leadership
inclusiveness
inclusivity
increase diversity
increase the diversity
indigenous community
inequalities
inequality
inequitable
inequities
inequity
injustice
institutional
intersectional
intersectionality
key groups
key people
key populations
Latinx
LGBT
LGBTQ
marginalize
marginalized
men who have sex with men
mental health
minorities
minority
most risk
MSM
multicultural
Mx
Native American
non-binary
nonbinary
oppression
oppression
oppressive
orientation
people + uterus
people-centered care
person-centered
person-centered care
polarization
political
pollution
pregnant people
pregnant person
pregnant persons
prejudice
privilege
privileges
promote diversity
promoting diversity
pronoun
pronouns
prostitute
race
race and ethnicity
racial
racial diversity
racial identity
racial inequality
racial justice
racially
racism
segregation
sense of belonging
sex
sexual preferences
sexuality
social justice
sociocultural
socioeconomic
status
stereotype
stereotypes
systemic
systemically
they/them
trans
transgender
transsexual
trauma
traumatic
tribal
unconscious bias
underappreciated
underprivileged
underrepresentation
underrepresented
underserved
undervalued
victim
victims
vulnerable populations
women
women and underrepresented
Notes: Some terms listed with a plus sign represent combinations of words that, when used together, acknowledge transgender people, which is not in keeping with the current federal government’s position that there are only two, immutable sexes. Any term collected above was included on at least one agency’s list, which does not necessarily imply that other agencies are also discouraged from using it.
The above terms appeared in government memos, in official and unofficial agency guidance and in other documents viewed by The New York Times. Some ordered the removal of these words from public-facing websites, or ordered the elimination of other materials (including school curricula) in which they might be included.
In other cases, federal agency managers advised caution in the terms’ usage without instituting an outright ban. Additionally, the presence of some terms was used to automatically flag for review some grant proposals and contracts that could conflict with Mr. Trump’s executive orders.
The list is most likely incomplete. More agency memos may exist than those seen by New York Times reporters, and some directives are vague or suggest what language might be impermissible without flatly stating it.
All presidential administrations change the language used in official communications to reflect their own policies. It is within their prerogative, as are amendments to or the removal of web pages, which The Times has found has already happened thousands of times in this administration.
Still, the words and phrases listed here represent a marked — and remarkable — shift in the corpus of language being used both in the federal government’s corridors of power and among its rank and file. They are an unmistakable reflection of this administration’s priorities.
For example, the Trump administration has frequently framed diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as being inherently at odds with what it has identified as “merit,” and it has argued that these initiatives have resulted in the elevation of unqualified or undeserving people. That rhetorical strategy — with its baked-in assumption of a lack of capacity in people of color, women, the disabled and other marginalized groups — has been criticized as discriminatory.
Haha. That “rhetorical strategy,” assuming that those groups are incompetent has not only been “criticized as discriminatory.” IT IS DISCRIMINATORY!
The Department of Education asked for tips about schools that continued to promote DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), and trolls jammed the inbox.
Last Thursday, the Trump Administration announced it would partner with M4L to launch EndDEI.ed.gov, allowing visitors to submit a form to report any “divisive ideologies and indoctrination” within K-12 schools. The press announcement about the website’s launch called school DEI initiatives “illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning.”
Critics touted the website as a snitch line, with Professor Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania commenting on Bluesky, “I believe Hitler had a program like this…”
The website’s form allows people to submit their email address, the name of the school or school district they want to report, and its ZIP code. It also includes a text entry field enabling people to describe what they’re reporting in less than 450 words, and also a file uploader for images less than 10 MB.
Anyone who has been on the internet long enough could guess how this turned out. It did not take long for people to begin spamming the submission form with memes and other messages ridiculing the government.
One social media user made reports about the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the fictional school of magic featured in the Harry Potter children’s book series.
I reported Hogwarts, Florida extension, for letting in muggles, and Prof. Rowling for being an all-around terrible person. Seems only fair. Note they don’t verify email addresses, so you can use Draco’s. Hypothetically.
One social media user said they disguised a plotline from an X-Men movie as a genuine report. X-Men is a science-fiction comic book superhero series set at Professor Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters. Its storylines often involve children being kidnapped or sent on dangerous adventures….
Another suggested reporting Elon Musk — the transphobic South African billionaire who has overseen the destruction of federal agencies under Trump — and calling Musk a “DEI hire.” Others suggested using the White House’s ZIP code to report infractions….
One Bluesky user found a major error in the form. Because it counts words instead of characters for its 450-word limit, anyone can override the word limit by avoiding using spaces. As such, one could send entire movie scripts or fan fiction as long as it was condensed into one extremely long word….
Another suggested that they would use this workaround to submit the entire text of My Immortal, a Harry Potter-based fan fiction that was published in serial format between 2006 and 2007….
People also made use of the file upload option in various ways.
Some suggested using the file upload option for more malicious practices, including sending zip bombs, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, and other malicious cyber crimes meant to overwhelm computer systems and disable their processing ability.
Of course, the submission of any malicious files on a gov website could be viewed as an attempted cyber attack with serious legal consequences. Other social media users urged individuals outside the U.S. to use a virtual private network (VPN) when submitting a report to help falsely alter their computer’s geo-location data, making their submissions appear more authentic….
PinkNews reported that the “snitch line” website” had shut down. However, it remained online as of the morning of Tuesday, March 4.
The U.S. Department of Education has followed civil rights law since the Department was created in 1979 and began operating in 1980. Its Office for Civil Rights investigates complaints of discrimination against students based on their race, gender, ethnic origin, or disability status.
The Trump administration has flipped the meaning of discrimination and now invites the public to report any examples of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” that they suspect or see. Is it Orwellian? Yes. What was once considered laudable is now labeled as dangerous.
Educators are expected to avoid acknowledging the existence and reality of diversity. They are expected to oppose “equity,” which means that everyone is treated fairly. They must stand up against “inclusion,” that is, welcoming all into activities.
Here is their “tip line,” which you are supposed to call.
U.S. Department of Education Launches “End DEI” Portal
U.S. Department of Education Launches “End DEI” Portal
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of Education launched EndDEI.Ed.Gov, a public portal for parents, students, teachers, and the broader community to submit reports of discrimination based on race or sex in publicly-funded K-12 schools.
The secure portal allows parents to provide an email address, the name of the student’s school or school district, and details of the concerning practices. The Department of Education will use submissions as a guide to identify potential areas for investigation.
“For years, parents have been begging schools to focus on teaching their kids practical skills like reading, writing, and math, instead of pushing critical theory, rogue sex education and divisive ideologies—but their concerns have been brushed off, mocked, or shut down entirely,” said Tiffany Justice, Co-Founder of Moms for Liberty. “Parents, now is the time that you share the receipts of the betrayal that has happened in our public schools. This webpage demonstrates that President Trump’s Department of Education is putting power back in the hands of parents.”
The Office of Communications and Outreach works with national, state, and local educational agencies, programs, and organizations to empower parents and families with information and resources to help them be full partners in their child’s programmatic, education and academic progress.
Contributors: OCO Editorial Team.
Note: This document contains information about and from public and private entities and organizations for the reader’s information. Inclusion does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any entity or organization or the products or services offered, or views expressed. This publication also contains hyperlinks and URLs created and maintained by outside organizations. They are provided for the reader’s convenience; however, the Department is not responsible for the accuracy of this information.
If you’re having trouble reading this message, click here
Former entertainment entrepreneur Linda McMahon is now U.S. Secretary of Education. She released her first statement, reiterating Trump’s attacks on “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” as well as “gender ideology” (I.e. recognizing the existence of ONLY the male-female binary and not recognizing those who are LGBT, such as Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, who is openly gay).
McMahon’s views are closely aligned with those of Moms for Liberty. Check out the website of the America First Policy Forum, where McMahon was chair of the board.
This statement was released by the department’s press office.
When I took the oath of office as Secretary of Education, I accepted responsibility for overseeing the U.S. Department of Education and those who work here. But more importantly, I took responsibility for supporting over 100 million American children and college students who are counting on their education to create opportunity and prepare them for a rewarding career.
I want to do right by both.
As you are all aware, President Trump nominated me to take the lead on one of his most momentous campaign promises to families. My vision is aligned with the President’s: to send education back to the states and empower all parents to choose an excellent education for their children. As a mother and grandmother, I know there is nobody more qualified than a parent to make educational decisions for their children. I also started my career studying to be a teacher, and as a Connecticut Board of Education member and college trustee, I have long held that teaching is the most noble of professions. As a businesswoman, I know the power of education to prepare workers for fulfilling careers.
American education can be the greatest in the world. It ought not to be corrupted by political ideologies, special interests, and unjust discrimination. Parents, teachers, and students alike deserve better.
After President Trump’s inauguration last month, he steadily signed a slate of executive orders to keep his promises: combatting critical race theory, DEI, gender ideology, discrimination in admissions, promoting school choice for every child, and restoring patriotic education and civics. He has also been focused on eliminating waste, red tape, and harmful programs in the federal government. The Department of Education’s role in this new era of accountability is to restore the rightful role of state oversight in education and to end the overreach from Washington.
This restoration will profoundly impact staff, budgets, and agency operations here at the Department. In coming months, we will partner with Congress and other federal agencies to determine the best path forward to fulfill the expectations of the President and the American people. We will eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy so that our colleges, K-12 schools, students, and teachers can innovate and thrive.
This review of our programs is long overdue. The Department of Education is not working as intended. Since its establishment in 1980, taxpayers have entrusted the department with over $1 trillion, yet student outcomes have consistently languished. Millions of young Americans are trapped in failing schools, subjected to radical anti-American ideology, or saddled with college debt for a degree that has not provided a meaningful return on their investment. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves after just a few years—and citing red tape as one of their primary reasons.
The reality of our education system is stark, and the American people have elected President Trump to make significant changes in Washington. Our job is to respect the will of the American people and the President they elected, who has tasked us with accomplishing the elimination of bureaucratic bloat here at the Department of Education—a momentous final mission—quickly and responsibly.
As I’ve learned many times throughout my career, disruption leads to innovation and gets results. We must start thinking about our final mission at the department as an overhaul—a last chance to restore the culture of liberty and excellence that made American education great. Changing the status quo can be daunting. But every staff member of this Department should be enthusiastic about any change that will benefit students.
True change does not happen overnight—especially the historic overhaul of a federal agency. Over the coming months, as we work hard to carry out the President’s directives, we will focus on a positive vision for what American education can be.
These are our convictions:
Parents are the primary decision makers in their children’s education.
Taxpayer-funded education should refocus on meaningful learning in math, reading, science, and history—not divisive DEI programs and gender ideology.
Postsecondary education should be a path to a well-paying career aligned with workforce needs.
Removing red tape and bureaucratic barriers will empower parents to make the best educational choices for their children. An effective transfer of educational oversight to the states will mean more autonomy for local communities. Teachers, too, will benefit from less micromanagement in the classroom—enabling them to get back to basics.
I hope each of you will embrace this vision going forward and use these convictions as a guide for conscientious and pragmatic action. The elimination of bureaucracy should free us, not limit us, in our pursuit of these goals. I want to invite all employees to join us in this historic final mission on behalf of all students, with the same dedication and excellence that you have brought to your careers as public servants.
This is our opportunity to perform one final, unforgettable public service to future generations of students. I hope you will join me in ensuring that when our final mission is complete, we will all be able to say that we left American education freer, stronger, and with more hope for the future.
On January 29, Trump signed two executive orders about schools: one was intended to turn federal funding into block grants to states to expand school choice, the other was intended to suspend federal funding to public schools unless they ended “radical indoctrination” about race and gender.
The administration wanted to stop all teaching about racism and sexuality. Their allies claimed that teaching about racism was racist and discriminatory. Trump’s executive order said that the schools should teach a “patriotic education,” by which it meant suppress difficult facts about our history and our society.
At the time, it was clear that the “indoctrination” order violated federal law, which explicitly bans any federal interference in curriculum. The federal law PL 103-227 General Education Provisions Act, Section 438 [20 USC-1232a] says: “No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, [or] administration…of any educational institution…or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published materials…”
That section of the law is titled PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL CONTROL OF EDUCATION.
On February 21, a federal district court in Maryland overturned the order on free speech grounds.
Usually the administration ignores adverse court orders, appeals, and keeps going.
But this time the Department of Education took a step back. It just issued a statement watering down Trump’s angry and illegal executive order.
The Education Department is retreating from some of the most incendiary suggestions it made last month in a sweeping directive threatening to pull federal funding from any college or K-12 school district that considers race in hiring, programming, scholarships and virtually every other aspect of student and campus life.
A new question-and-answer document, posted online late Friday, clearly states that by law the federal government cannot dictate curriculum. It also notes that cultural celebrations and events celebrating Black History Month are legally permitted as long as they are open to people of all races.
It also narrows the definition of which types of diversity, equity and inclusion programs might draw scrutiny. The new directive adheres more closely to traditional court doctrines and interpretation of civil rights law, experts said Saturday.
“I see it as a significant retrenchment back towards more established case law,” said Ray Li, an attorney who worked on these issues in the Office for Civil Rights during the Biden administration. “It reads as if written by someone different.”
“A lot of the most unsupported claims made” in the original letter, he said, “have been walked back.”
The original guidance suggested, for instance, that teaching that the United States was built upon “systemic and structural racism” would be unlawful. A lawsuit challenging the directive questioned how any school could teach a complete history without including examples of systemic racism such as slavery, Jim Crow segregation laws and the incarceration camps Japanese Americans were sent to during World War II.
“It’s certainly better supported by law and more neutral in tone” than the original letter, agreed Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, a lobbying group for colleges and universities.
Since taking office, President Donald Trump and his administration have signaled an eagerness to investigate school districts and colleges that are out of step with conservative legal theories and his priorities regarding how schools handle questions of race and gender.
Erin Reed is a transgender activist who tracks the attacks on people like her on her blog “Erin in the Morning.” Erin has a lot of ground to cover, as Trump launches a firestorm of hate towards transgender people, joined by extremist state legislatures, occasionally slowed down by court rulings. Do trans people have any rights? As American citizens, shouldn’t they be able to live the life they choose? Why does Trump try to erase their existence? Why are Republicans so fearful of this tiny minority of people?
Trans people are a perfect scapegoat.
As long as Republicans can keep their base focused on the nonexistent danger of trans people, they won’t notice that Trump is undermining healthcare and chopping up social programs that benefit his base, while cutting the taxes of billionaires and corporations.
Nazi Book-Burning
Erin Reed writes:
Nearly a century ago, Nazis raided the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft—the Institute of Sexology—a pioneering research institution and clinic founded by Magnus Hirschfeld, a forefather of transgender research. The institute housed tens of thousands of books, research notes, and data documenting the first decades of scientific study on transgender and queer people. Long before the labor camps and mass killings, the Nazis identified Hirschfeld as a primary enemy, targeting his work in the early rise of fascism. That night, in Berlin’s Bebelplatz Square, they burned his institute’s collection in a now-infamous spectacle, immortalized in history books yet often stripped of the context of who, exactly, was targeted. Now, President Trump is doing the same—digitally burning records of transgender people and pressuring nonprofits to follow suit.
And those digital fires have spread. Within days of Trump’s anti-trans executive orders, the word “transgender” was erased from nearly every government website where it once appeared. CDC data on transgender health was stripped from its pages. The Stonewall National Monument—dedicated to the LGBTQ+ people who fought back against oppression, led by transgender activists—was purged of any mention of transgender people online. Even institutions and nonprofits serving LGBTQ+ communities, particularly those receiving federal funding, have been pressured into scrubbing “transgender” and “gender identity” from their materials. The Nazis would envy the speed and efficiency with which it was done.
As a transgender journalist dedicated to documenting these events and helping people grasp the broader context of attacks on queer and trans communities, I feel the weight of this moment. The sacking of the institute was not met with uproar; there was little popular resistance. At the time, no journalists spoke with sympathy about those who sought care there—much less transgender journalists who might have needed that care themselves. If only alarm had spread then, or even earlier, when the very people receiving treatment at the institute were first being demonized.
And like today’s digital fires, those flames were not lit without years of prior hate. Four years before the book burnings, one of the earliest editions of Der Stürmer—the Nazi propaganda publication that fueled fascism’s rise—accused Hirschfeld of “grooming” youth, echoing today’s attacks on LGBTQ+ people. Hitler notoriously called Hirschfeld “the world’s most dangerous Jew.” Trans and queer people were the canaries in the coalmine of atrocity. Similarly, just a few years ago, the “groomer” slur ignited online, feeding a growing trans panic that has only escalated since.
Early edition of Der Stürmer accusing Hirschfeld of grooming youth.
I don’t know where we are heading as a country, or what future you see when you stare into today’s fires. But I do know that the transgender and queer readers I write for every day see the signs—and fear the worst. Trans people, in mass numbers, have rushed to secure passports—some too late, as the administration has tightened restrictions on gender marker changes, in some cases even confiscating documents. Anyone active in this space knows people who have already left. And yet, despite this fear, so many cisgender people I speak to—including journalists covering stories that implicate our rights—seem unaware of the full scope of what is happening. I even had one reporter recently express surprise and dismay at hearing trans people were removed from Stonewall, something widely reported on in recent weeks.
People should pay attention. Court battles are already raging, with rulings blocking the administration from stripping funding from hospitals that provide transgender care. In another case, a judge appears poised to halt Trump’s attempt to expel trans service members from the military. As Trump and his allies openly float the idea of ignoring court rulings, the risk of a brazen defiance of judicial authority looms, and transgender rights could be an early test case. The way this administration treats transgender people may foreshadow how it treats all those it seeks to silence—a potential step toward consolidating totalitarian power.
Trump’s digital erasure of transgender people is more than policy—it is a declaration that the very existence of certain human beings is unwelcome in the official record. This is not a hallmark of a democratic leader respecting courts and laws; it is the move of someone intent on atrocity. When you eliminate all traces of a people’s identity, it surpasses mere ideology and becomes an act of “salting the earth,” ensuring their name and their history cannot be seen. Such an action must be recognized and resisted by every voice capable of protest. We are witnessing the dark echo of “first they came for…” in our own time, and we must understand that after they come for us transgender people, they will not simply stop with us.
Diane Ravitch's blog 