AMERICA IS A FASCIST STATE
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism fascism is at the far right wing of the traditional left–right spectrum.
AMERICA IS A ROGUE STATE
A nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/opinion/elon-musk-south-africa.html
Opinion
Elon Musk Is South African. We Shouldn’t Forget It.
by William Shoki
February 28, 2025
New York Times
Credit: Photo illustration by The New York Times. Source photograph by Eric Lee/The New York Times
Listen to this article · 7:39 minutes
Learn more
[Mr. Shoki is a journalist and the editor of the Africa Is a Country website. He wrote from Cape Town.]
Elon Musk is everywhere.
He is firing federal employees, gaining access to important government data, popping into the Oval Office, appearing on Fox News alongside President Trump and even attending a White House cabinet meeting. For some, his rampage through the institutions of the American state augurs a replacement by private interests; for others, it amounts to a Big Tech takeover. For many looking on, it’s above all a baffling bromance at the heart of power. However one understands Mr. Musk’s role in the Trump administration, it has cemented his reputation as one of the most powerful people on the planet.
But discussion of Mr. Musk, especially in the United States, often misses something: He is a white South African, part of a demographic that for centuries sat atop a racial hierarchy maintained by violent colonial rule. That history matters. For all the attempts to describe Mr. Musk as a self-made genius or a dispassionate technocrat, he is in fact a distinctly ideological figure, one whose worldview is inseparable from his rearing in apartheid South Africa. More than just an eccentric billionaire, Mr. Musk represents an unresolved question: What happens when settler rule fails but settlers remain? That’s what is playing out in America today.
Born in Pretoria in 1971, Mr. Musk had an upbringing typical of the white South African elite. The family was wealthy, despite his parents divorcing when he was young, its economic standing shaped by a system designed to assist whites. Mr. Musk doesn’t appear to have enjoyed his private education — there are stories of bullying and loneliness — but he still benefited from the advantages it conferred. Though his father, an engineer, was for a time a member of the anti-apartheid Progressive Party, there is little evidence Mr. Musk inherited his political convictions. Like many white South Africans, Mr. Musk left the country before the collapse of racial rule, settling in 1989 in Canada, where his mother was born.
He never returned, but South Africa clearly stayed with him. Take his recent intervention into the debate over the country’s land reform as an example. In response to a bill passed in January that allows in specific circumstances the expropriation of land without compensation, Mr. Musk used his platform to suggest that white South Africans are uniquely persecuted. Never mind that land restitution is a broadly accepted norm in post-colonial societies or that eminent domain or compulsory purchase laws do something similar in the United States and elsewhere. The Trump administration — amplifying fringe voices, promoting distorted narratives of racial victimhood and using Mr. Musk’s claim as a symbolic cudgel — was only too happy to play along.
Mr. Musk’s role in the controversy suggests he has not so much moved beyond the logic of apartheid as absorbed it. His ideological commitments — deregulated markets, hostility to labor organizing and Trumpist nationalism — bear its trace. In effect, his politics reprise apartheid’s economic principles on a global scale: maintaining zones of privilege under the guise of “free enterprise” while resisting any moves toward redistribution as threats. You can hear it in his exhortations for others to work harder and his pleas for him and his businesses to receive special treatment.
Mr. Musk is one of a number of reactionary figures with roots in Southern Africa who found an unlikely home in Silicon Valley and now wield disproportionate influence in shaping American and global right-wing politics. These men, such as Peter Thiel and David Sacks, emerged from a historical tradition that revered hierarchy and sought to sustain racial and economic dominance, only to find themselves in a world where that order was unraveling. Their politics reflect an instinct to preserve elite rule, cloaked in the language of meritocracy and market freedom, while channeling resentment toward new power structures they view as threats to their position.
For them, Southern Africa is never very far away. They are part of a global right that has long been fascinated with Rhodesia and its successor, Zimbabwe. For them, the loss of white-minority rule in Zimbabwe represents the model of civilizational decay — a formerly “successful” colonial state plunged into chaos through decolonization. The specter of “Zimbabwefication” is wielded as a warning against any redistribution of power. Now South Africa — “openly pushing for genocide of white people,” according to Mr. Musk — is being made to take on the mantle of scare story. The implicit argument is that settler power, once displaced, leads only to ruin.
It doesn’t help that South Africa has stood against Israel’s genocidal aggression in Gaza, leading the charge in attempts to hold it to account under international law. This outspoken opposition has further alienated the country from the Western powers that support Israel, reinforcing the perception of South Africa as a rogue state in the eyes of the global right. One of the front-runners to be Mr. Trump’s pick for ambassador to the country, the South African-born Breitbart commentator Joel Pollak, certainly believes it is. For figures like Mr. Musk, South Africa’s stance against Israel no doubt confirms their view of the country as a lost cause — a once “civilized” outpost of white rule now succumbing to the chaos of majority rule and decolonization.
This reaction is both ideological and deeply personal. For all his vehement opposition to “woke” identity politics, Mr. Musk is actually an ardent identitarian. He has boosted claims from far-right South African groups that the government is “race mad,” with 142 “race laws” on its books. But their method for defining a “race law” is laughably broad: Any law that makes race legally relevant supposedly qualifies. By this metric, even laws that prohibit arbitrary racial discrimination or repeal apartheid-era discrimination would count. Given Mr. Musk’s aggressive dismantling of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, this obsession with one identity group is more than a little ironic.
It’s dangerous, too. The fixation has led to Mr. Trump ending, by executive order, America’s financial assistance to South Africa, with potentially devastating effect on treatment for H.I.V. and AIDS. South Africa is now anathema: Secretary of State Marco Rubio is refusing to travel there for the Group of 20 summit later in the year, saying that it is a hotbed of “anti-Americanism” that is “doing very bad things.” Given the administration’s fascination with old-style colonialism — epitomized most starkly by its putative plan to resettle Gaza with “the world’s people,” along with the desire to buy Greenland and annex the Panama Canal — it’s no surprise that it sees South Africa as a dystopian prophecy to be resisted.
Mr. Musk, ever the entrepreneur, is happy to supply the propaganda. But South Africa’s history tells a different story — one where white dominance was not inevitable, where settler rule did not last and where a different future, however uncertain, remains possible. From his exalted position of power, Mr. Musk may do all he can to reverse or subvert this story. But he won’t be able to. History, unlike Mars, is not his to colonize.
More on Elon Musk:
Opinion | Zeynep Tufekci
Here Are the Digital Clues to What Musk Is Really Up To
Feb. 21, 2025
Opinion | Tressie McMillan Cottom
Look Past Elon Musk’s Chaos. There’s Something More Sinister at Work.
Feb. 12, 2025
Opinion | Louis Staples
Elon Musk Isn’t Trolling Britain. He’s Doing Something Much Worse.
Jan. 28, 2025
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
William Shoki is the editor at Africa Is a Country, an independent online publication.
Opinion
Elon Musk Is South African. We Shouldn’t Forget It.
by William Shoki
February 28, 2025
New York Times
Credit: Photo illustration by The New York Times. Source photograph by Eric Lee/The New York Times
Listen to this article · 7:39 minutes
Learn more
[Mr. Shoki is a journalist and the editor of the Africa Is a Country website. He wrote from Cape Town.]
Elon Musk is everywhere.
He is firing federal employees, gaining access to important government data, popping into the Oval Office, appearing on Fox News alongside President Trump and even attending a White House cabinet meeting. For some, his rampage through the institutions of the American state augurs a replacement by private interests; for others, it amounts to a Big Tech takeover. For many looking on, it’s above all a baffling bromance at the heart of power. However one understands Mr. Musk’s role in the Trump administration, it has cemented his reputation as one of the most powerful people on the planet.
But discussion of Mr. Musk, especially in the United States, often misses something: He is a white South African, part of a demographic that for centuries sat atop a racial hierarchy maintained by violent colonial rule. That history matters. For all the attempts to describe Mr. Musk as a self-made genius or a dispassionate technocrat, he is in fact a distinctly ideological figure, one whose worldview is inseparable from his rearing in apartheid South Africa. More than just an eccentric billionaire, Mr. Musk represents an unresolved question: What happens when settler rule fails but settlers remain? That’s what is playing out in America today.
Born in Pretoria in 1971, Mr. Musk had an upbringing typical of the white South African elite. The family was wealthy, despite his parents divorcing when he was young, its economic standing shaped by a system designed to assist whites. Mr. Musk doesn’t appear to have enjoyed his private education — there are stories of bullying and loneliness — but he still benefited from the advantages it conferred. Though his father, an engineer, was for a time a member of the anti-apartheid Progressive Party, there is little evidence Mr. Musk inherited his political convictions. Like many white South Africans, Mr. Musk left the country before the collapse of racial rule, settling in 1989 in Canada, where his mother was born.
He never returned, but South Africa clearly stayed with him. Take his recent intervention into the debate over the country’s land reform as an example. In response to a bill passed in January that allows in specific circumstances the expropriation of land without compensation, Mr. Musk used his platform to suggest that white South Africans are uniquely persecuted. Never mind that land restitution is a broadly accepted norm in post-colonial societies or that eminent domain or compulsory purchase laws do something similar in the United States and elsewhere. The Trump administration — amplifying fringe voices, promoting distorted narratives of racial victimhood and using Mr. Musk’s claim as a symbolic cudgel — was only too happy to play along.
Mr. Musk’s role in the controversy suggests he has not so much moved beyond the logic of apartheid as absorbed it. His ideological commitments — deregulated markets, hostility to labor organizing and Trumpist nationalism — bear its trace. In effect, his politics reprise apartheid’s economic principles on a global scale: maintaining zones of privilege under the guise of “free enterprise” while resisting any moves toward redistribution as threats. You can hear it in his exhortations for others to work harder and his pleas for him and his businesses to receive special treatment.
Mr. Musk is one of a number of reactionary figures with roots in Southern Africa who found an unlikely home in Silicon Valley and now wield disproportionate influence in shaping American and global right-wing politics. These men, such as Peter Thiel and David Sacks, emerged from a historical tradition that revered hierarchy and sought to sustain racial and economic dominance, only to find themselves in a world where that order was unraveling. Their politics reflect an instinct to preserve elite rule, cloaked in the language of meritocracy and market freedom, while channeling resentment toward new power structures they view as threats to their position.
For them, Southern Africa is never very far away. They are part of a global right that has long been fascinated with Rhodesia and its successor, Zimbabwe. For them, the loss of white-minority rule in Zimbabwe represents the model of civilizational decay — a formerly “successful” colonial state plunged into chaos through decolonization. The specter of “Zimbabwefication” is wielded as a warning against any redistribution of power. Now South Africa — “openly pushing for genocide of white people,” according to Mr. Musk — is being made to take on the mantle of scare story. The implicit argument is that settler power, once displaced, leads only to ruin.
It doesn’t help that South Africa has stood against Israel’s genocidal aggression in Gaza, leading the charge in attempts to hold it to account under international law. This outspoken opposition has further alienated the country from the Western powers that support Israel, reinforcing the perception of South Africa as a rogue state in the eyes of the global right. One of the front-runners to be Mr. Trump’s pick for ambassador to the country, the South African-born Breitbart commentator Joel Pollak, certainly believes it is. For figures like Mr. Musk, South Africa’s stance against Israel no doubt confirms their view of the country as a lost cause — a once “civilized” outpost of white rule now succumbing to the chaos of majority rule and decolonization.
This reaction is both ideological and deeply personal. For all his vehement opposition to “woke” identity politics, Mr. Musk is actually an ardent identitarian. He has boosted claims from far-right South African groups that the government is “race mad,” with 142 “race laws” on its books. But their method for defining a “race law” is laughably broad: Any law that makes race legally relevant supposedly qualifies. By this metric, even laws that prohibit arbitrary racial discrimination or repeal apartheid-era discrimination would count. Given Mr. Musk’s aggressive dismantling of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, this obsession with one identity group is more than a little ironic.
It’s dangerous, too. The fixation has led to Mr. Trump ending, by executive order, America’s financial assistance to South Africa, with potentially devastating effect on treatment for H.I.V. and AIDS. South Africa is now anathema: Secretary of State Marco Rubio is refusing to travel there for the Group of 20 summit later in the year, saying that it is a hotbed of “anti-Americanism” that is “doing very bad things.” Given the administration’s fascination with old-style colonialism — epitomized most starkly by its putative plan to resettle Gaza with “the world’s people,” along with the desire to buy Greenland and annex the Panama Canal — it’s no surprise that it sees South Africa as a dystopian prophecy to be resisted.
Mr. Musk, ever the entrepreneur, is happy to supply the propaganda. But South Africa’s history tells a different story — one where white dominance was not inevitable, where settler rule did not last and where a different future, however uncertain, remains possible. From his exalted position of power, Mr. Musk may do all he can to reverse or subvert this story. But he won’t be able to. History, unlike Mars, is not his to colonize.
More on Elon Musk:
Opinion | Zeynep Tufekci
Here Are the Digital Clues to What Musk Is Really Up To
Feb. 21, 2025
Opinion | Tressie McMillan Cottom
Look Past Elon Musk’s Chaos. There’s Something More Sinister at Work.
Feb. 12, 2025
Opinion | Louis Staples
Elon Musk Isn’t Trolling Britain. He’s Doing Something Much Worse.
Jan. 28, 2025
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
William Shoki is the editor at Africa Is a Country, an independent online publication.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5169310-trump-vance-zelensky-oval-office/
Administration
Trump, Vance go off on Zelensky in contentious Oval Office spat
by Alex Gangitano and Brett Samuels
February 28, 2025
The Hill
February 28, 2025
The Hill
President Trump went off on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during an extraordinary Oval Office meeting in front of cameras on Friday in which he raised his voice and called the foreign leader “disrespectful.”
The meeting, which began cordially, devolved when Zelensky pressed Vice President Vance for suggesting that a diplomatic solution be reached with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war.
Zelensky in turn laid out years of Putin violently taking over Ukrainian territory, going back on previous ceasefires and refusing to exchange prisoners.
“What do you mean?” Zelensky asked Vance.
“I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country,” Vance responded. “I think it’s disrespectful for you to come to the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems, you should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to his conflict.”
Zelensky then suggested that the United States did not feel the ramifications of the war in Ukraine yet because of geography, but would feel it in the future, setting off Trump.
“Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel because you’re in no position… to dictate what we’re going to feel,” Trump replied. “We’re going to feel very good and very strong. You’re right now, not in a very good position.”
“You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards,” Trump said, gesturing toward Zelensky and raising his voice. “You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people, you’re gambling with World War III… and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.”
Vance asked Zelensky if he had said “thank you once” during the Oval Office meeting.
Zelensky replied, “Please, you think that if you will speak very loudly about the war…”
“He’s not speaking loudly, your country’s in big trouble… you’re not winning this. You’re not winning this. You have a damn good chance of coming out okay because of us,” Trump told Zelensky.
Vance also knocked Zelensky for a visit he made to a Pennsylvania ammunition plant in September, which Republicans took to be a campaign stop in support of the Biden-Harris administration.
“You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October. Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country,” Vance said.
Vance has repeatedly suggested that Ukraine cede territory in order to end the war with Russia, particularly before he ran as Trump’s running mate.
During a back and forth, Zelensky was repeatedly asked if he had said thank you for the billions in weapons the U.S. has sent Ukraine since the war started in 2022.
“If you didn’t have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks,” Trump said. “It’s going to be a very hard thing to do business like this.”
“Just say thank you,” Vance added. “We know you’re wrong.”
A White House official told The Hill that after the spat, Trump and Zelensky went into separate rooms and the Ukrainians wanted the talks to continue. The White House told them to leave, which Trump had ordered his aides to do.
Friday’s meeting was ostensibly going to be about an agreement for the U.S. to access critical minerals in Ukraine. Trump has argued the deal would boost the Ukrainian economy and help the U.S. recoup money it has provided to Ukraine in fighting Russian forces.
Just after the meeting, Trump posted on Truth Social that Zelensky was “not ready for peace” and suggested he was cutting off talks with the Ukrainian leader.
Monday marked three years since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine after amassing troops on the border and demanding a ban on Ukraine ever joining NATO. The invasion took place nearly a decade after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.
Updated 2:30 p.m.
MSNBC
February 28, 2025
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZThLlfMvMRY
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chris-hayes-trump-irreparably-destroyed-world-order-with-zelenskyy-blowup-233236549860
“Today,
Donald Trump irreparably destroyed the 80-year-old post-World War II
international order,” says Chris Hayes on Trump and JD Vance’s attack on
Zelenskyy in the Oval Office.
https://thehill.com/video-clips/5168859-watch-live-donald-trump-volodymyr-zelensky-press-conference-minerals-deal/
https://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2025/2/21/schools_trump
"Will Universities Surrender or Resist?" Scholar Slams Trump's Threat to Defund Universities
Watch: Trump, Zelensky give remarks as Ukraine minerals deal comes into focus
https://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2025/2/21/schools_trump
"Will Universities Surrender or Resist?" Scholar Slams Trump's Threat to Defund Universities
VIDEO:
February 21, 2025
Latest Shows
The Trump administration has issued a two-week ultimatum for schools and universities across the United States to end all programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion — DEI — or risk losing federal funding. The Department of Education has already canceled some $600 million in grants for teacher training on race, social justice and other topics as part of its crusade against "woke" policies. This comes as President Donald Trump has said he wants to abolish the agency and tapped major Trump donor and former professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon to carry out that goal; she is expected to be confirmed by the Senate with little or no Republican opposition. Education scholar Julian Vasquez Heilig, who teaches at Western Michigan University, says Trump's moves are part of "an attempt to privatize education" in the United States, with DEI used as a wedge to accomplish a larger restructuring of social structures. "Higher education hasn't faced a crisis like this since potentially McCarthyism.”
TRANSCRIPT:
AMY GOODMAN: The Trump administration has given K-through-12 schools and universities a two-week ultimatum to end DEI — diversity, equity and inclusion — initiatives or risk losing federal funding. In a letter sent on Valentine’s Day, February 14th, one week ago, to school administrators, the Education Department barred schools and colleges from, quote, “using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies and all other aspects of student, academic and campus life,” unquote. The Education Department has already canceled some $600 million in grants focused on training teachers on critical race theory, social justice and other related topics. Meanwhile, the department’s Office for Civil Rights has also declared race-based scholarships, cultural centers and even graduation ceremonies illegal.
The president of the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,600 colleges and universities, said in a statement, quote, “There’s nothing specific enough for us to be able to act on in 14 days unless we just wipe the slate clean.” He added, “Overcompliance, anticipatory compliance, preemptive compliance is not a strategy. The strategy needs to be much more considered, much more nuanced,” unquote.
This comes as Trump’s pick to head the Department of Education, Linda McMahon, cleared a committee vote Thursday, and her nomination now heads to the full Senate, where it’s expected to be approved. Trump has told reporters he wants McMahon to dismantle the Department of Education.
REPORTER: Why nominate Linda McMahon to be the Education Department secretary if you’re going to get rid of the Education Department?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Because I told Linda, “Linda, I hope you do a great job and put yourself out of a job.” I want her to put herself out of a job, Education Department.
AMY GOODMAN: Linda McMahon is the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment and a major Trump donor. During her confirmation hearing earlier this month, she was questioned by Democrat Chris Murphy on Trump’s order banning diversity, equity and inclusion, DEI.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: My son is in a public school. He takes a class called African American history. If you’re running an African American history class, could you perhaps be in violation of this court order — of this executive order?
LINDA McMAHON: I’m not quite certain, and I’d like to look into it further and get back to you on that.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by education scholar Julian Vasquez Heilig, professor of educational leadership, research and technology at Western Michigan University. His new piece is headlined “U.S. Department of Education’s 14-Day Ultimatum on Equal Opportunity: Will Universities Surrender or Resist?” He also helped organize the coalition Defending the Freedom to Learn and served leader — with the NAACP on education and other issues.
Thanks so much for being with us. It’s great to have you here. Professor, can you start off by talking about the response a week ago, on Valentine’s Day, when university and college presidents across the United States got a letter that said, “End DEI” — and I want to ask you exactly what that means — “in two weeks” —
JULIAN VASQUEZ HEILIG: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: — “or lose all of your federal funding”? We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars across the United States.
JULIAN VASQUEZ HEILIG: Right. Well, first of all, Amy, thank you so much for having me on your show. Just glad, glad to join you.
First, you know, I want to say that I think that the higher education community, also the K-12 community, understands that this letter from the U.S. Department of Education doesn’t carry the force of law. We do know, of course, that what’s happening in Washington, D.C., is that there is uses — they’re using resources, finances, as a lever. So, we’ve seen, for example, funding from the NSF, from the NIH, IES — at Western Michigan University, for example, we’ve lost $20 million in grants in the College of Education and Human Development. And so, they’re really using the power of the purse to try — to attempt to enforce these different — you know, abolishing the Department of Education with this letter.
But I think it’s been really bewildering to K-12 and higher education, which, my understanding, is the goal. I mean, the Office of Management and Budget, the director there has said that that’s really the goal of this blitzkrieg, is for all of these requests to be bewildering. And I know in higher education, it’s been very difficult. And so you have cabinets, presidents, provosts trying to understand what are going to be the impacts of this. You could see six-figure, seven-figure, eight-figure reductions in research funding. Our attempts to find the cure for cancer, to solve the teacher shortage, to create more efficient energy, all those things are under threat, because over the last hundred years or so, higher education has seen large investments from the federal government, and historically, those investments, that search to solve the teacher shortage and create more efficient energy, etc., they didn’t come with strings attached. And now institutions, higher education institutions and K-12 districts are facing millions of dollars in reductions if they don’t pause DEI.
Now, you mentioned in your lead-up, “Well, what is DEI?” And I think it’s important to talk about what DEI is, actually. DEI is not reverse discrimination. What DEI does is, as educators — and I taught fourth grade. I taught ESL. I’ve taught college students, doctoral students. What DEI does is it helps us to create more success for historically marginalized communities. So, we want to ensure that African American students, that when we bring them to our campus, that we graduate them — Latino students, students with disabilities, veterans. It’s a wide spectrum. And so, I think it’s important to understand that DEI is not reverse discrimination. It’s our attempts to ensure success for all students on our campus, close those gaps, those equity gaps, in graduation rates, in retention rates. That’s what DEI work does. That’s why we have Black graduation ceremonies or Mexican American graduation ceremonies. We want to create the climate. We want to create the opportunity for students when they come to us in higher education, when they come to us in our K-12 schools. We want them to be successful. We want all students to be successful, whether they’re Jewish or have disabilities, etc. That’s what DEI is, and so it’s not about reverse discrimination. It’s about student success, faculty success, staff success.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to a 2023 video on Donald Trump’s campaign platform website in which he proposes taking, quote, “billions and billions of dollars that we will collect by taxing, finding and suing excessively large private university endowments” to create what he calls the American Academy.
DONALD TRUMP: Whether you want lectures on ancient histories or an introduction to financial accounting or training in a skilled trade, the goal will be to deliver it and get it done properly, using study groups, mentors, industry partnerships and the latest breakthrough in computing. This will be a truly top-tier education option for the people. It will be strictly nonpolitical, and there will be no wokeness or jihadism allowed. None of that’s going to be allowed.
Most importantly, the American Academy will compete directly with the existing and very costly four-year university system by granting students degree credentials that the U.S. government and all federal contractors will henceforth recognize. The Academy will award the full and complete equivalent of a bachelor’s degree.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, this is very significant. Julian Vasquez Heilig, that Trump is proposing an alternative American education system. We already know what happened with his Trump University. He was successfully sued for this for-profit college. But talk about what he is proposing, the American Academy.
JULIAN VASQUEZ HEILIG: So, first, I want to say — and then I’ll directly address the question. First, I want to say that universities are not ideological. So, do we have folks on our campus who are on the right or on the left? Do we have students who are on the right or on the left? Do we have students who are apolitical? Absolutely. But universities are not ideological. They’re places of learning. They’re the places where the difficult conversations happen. So, I think that’s the first thing to say.
All of the politicians that you see making pronouncements about universities, they all attended universities, some of them the elite Ivy Leagues — the president and vice president, for example. So, I think that’s important to say.
I think the second important to say is that this is expected. I want to take you back in history, OK, be a scholar for a moment here. If you think about the dictator Pinochet and what he did after he took over the country of Chile, he understood that as a part of the autocratic playbook, that you have to privately control and privatize education. And so you see a push for this in K-12 education right now with school vouchers, which is that we want education to be privatized. It’s not a public good. And so what you see here, I believe, is an attempt to privatize education. And I’m sure it will be for profit. And, you know, he didn’t speak to that. And so, this is a part of that sort of classic playbook, because when something is in the public realm, it’s a public good. And so, what you see here is really an attempt to privatize education, by all indications.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to Russell Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget, who was architect of Project 2025, the radical playbook to seize executive power, radically reshape federal agencies. Last year, undercover reporters with the Center for Climate Reporting recorded Vought discussing his plan.
RUSSELL VOUGHT: I am opposed to the Department of Education because I think it’s a department of critical race theory.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Vought speaking on television.
I want to go now, in response to the threats to DEI programs and LGBTQ outreach from the Trump administration, to the president of Mount Holyoke, Danielle Holley, who recently said, “To basically comply with things that are not within our values simply because we feel a threat of investigation is something that we should not be doing as the higher education community. Instead, we need to just say 'No! Here's what we stand for. We will continue to stand for this. And if you believe that you can legally challenge our mission or our values, that’s up to you to try to do,’” the president of Mount Holyoke said, who herself is African American.
Julian Vasquez Heilig, if you can tell us what is happening right now across the country?
JULIAN VASQUEZ HEILIG: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: This whole idea of obeying in advance, and, you know, because of the very real threat —
JULIAN VASQUEZ HEILIG: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: — of losing so much money and funding, that will hurt the very people that these university presidents are trying to protect.
JULIAN VASQUEZ HEILIG: Yeah, yes. First, let me just address Vought. So, you know, he also said, “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them not to want to go to work, because, increasingly, we want them viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down. We want them to be put in trauma.” So I think that helps us understand the blitzkrieg from political actors right now, is that they really want to put higher education in trauma. That’s almost a direct quote from from Vought. So, I think that helps sort of contextualize.
Now, we have some difficult decisions to make as higher education leaders, as K-12 leaders, some very difficult decisions, because, as I mentioned, over the last hundred years, universities have become very dependent on solving the world’s issues through research, and so that means there’s millions of dollars that the federal government has been providing without strings attached. Well, now there’s going to be strings attached.
But who’s to say that diversity is where these conversations stop? So, what if, after diversity, the question is, “Well, we don’t want you to have unions,” or “We don’t want you to have a College of Fine Arts, because we don’t think that that’s appropriate”?
And so, when there’s strings attached — so, universities have to make two decisions. One, there will have to be courage, like the president of Mount Holyoke or the president at Wesleyan in Connecticut, or, two, patronage. So, in talking with some folks, some scholars at the University of Michigan, yesterday, there’s really those two choices for higher education institutions. And so, there’s a side where we’re going to have to innovate and rethink how higher education is funded, or we’re going to have to succumb to a system of patronage where the federal government — you know, in four years, a Democrat might come in as president and say, “You won’t receive federal funding unless you have DEI programs.” So, that’s really the road we’re headed down.
And then, I think one — just one final thought, which is that when we hire leaders in higher education, we typically look at their pedigree. Did they go to Harvard or Berkeley or Stanford? Were they department chairs or deans? But now we have to have additional criteria when we’re selecting our leaders, our deans, our department chairs. It involves courage. It involves morality. It involves empathy. So, we need special kinds of leaders in this very difficult time. I would argue that higher education hasn’t faced a crisis like this since potentially McCarthyism. And so, we need a different kind of leader to address these modern challenges also.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, are there lawsuits being planned? There’s one week to go after this letter.
JULIAN VASQUEZ HEILIG: Yeah. Well, there’s already multiple lawsuits. For example, my understanding is that the NIH funding has been paused in court, from a report that I read from President Ono.
AMY GOODMAN: The freeze has been paused.
JULIAN VASQUEZ HEILIG: Yeah, the freeze has been paused. Yeah, exactly. So, there is. I know that the APLU and the AAU — so, these are the conglomerates of the different kinds of institutions — that they’re involved in litigation, too. I suspect that you’ll see litigation from the civil rights community. And I think that’s part of the strategy for educators. And, you know, I think it’s important for us to understand that academics, educators, we have to create alliances with students and engage in political and legal advocacy, and research and document and publicize how these things are actually impacting our institutions and who they’re impacting.
And then I think it’s also — one final thought is that we have to leverage our professional associations or organizations, accrediting bodies. There’s a reason why accrediting bodies are also being targeted, because accrediting bodies set the standards for universities. So, it’s very important that we create these coalitions, and so that as this pressure continues on higher education and K-12, that we can respond, because the number one priority of our institutions is student success. And I don’t believe — my argument is that none of this is in the best interest of students.
AMY GOODMAN: Julian Vasquez Heilig, we thank you so much for joining us, from Kalamazoo, Michigan, professor of educational leadership, research and technology at Western Michigan University. We’ll link to your new piece, “U.S. Department of Education’s 14-Day Ultimatum on Equal Opportunity: Will Universities Surrender or Resist?”
Up next, Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future. We’ll speak with Yale philosopher Jason Stanley. Back in 20 seconds.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
Next story from this daily show
“Erasing History” from the U.S. to Germany: “Wars Are Won by Teachers,” Says Yale Prof. Jason Stanley
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/us/politics/virginia-military-institute-cedric-wins.html
The First Black Leader of Virginia Military Institute Is Ousted
The college’s board decided not to renew the contract of its superintendent, Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins, who led diversity efforts and removed a Confederate statue on campus.
Listen to this article · 3:36 minutes
Learn more
Virginia Military Institute’s superintendent, Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins. Credit: Steve Helber/Associated Press
Virginia Military Institute’s superintendent, Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins. Credit: Steve Helber/Associated PressMarch 2, 2025
New York Times
The board of Virginia Military Institute voted on Friday against extending the contract of Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins, the college’s first Black superintendent.
The school’s board of visitors, which voted 10-6 not to extend General Wins’s contract, did not give an official reason for the decision, which was made after a closed session that lasted more than two hours.
The move followed years of pushback from conservative alumni of the college who had objected to what they called General Wins’s “woke” efforts to increase campus diversity. And it followed accusations from a Virginia state senator that the effort to remove him was racially motivated.
The school is the oldest state-supported military college in the country, and all students participate in reserve officers training, a pathway to leadership roles in the U.S. military. General Wins, a V.M.I. alumnus, was appointed to the job in 2021, although he began on an interim basis the previous year. He was responsible for removing the statue of Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, a Confederate general, that had been prominently positioned on campus.
He also led efforts to increase diversity on campus following reports of “relentless racism” experienced by Black cadets published by The Washington Post in 2020, shortly before he took over. A subsequent state investigation concluded that there was a racist and sexist culture at V.M.I.
When the statue was removed, General Wins acknowledged Jackson’s ties to the school, where he was an instructor, and the strong opinions about the decision. General Wins said in a statement at the time, “Though change can sometimes be difficult, it is time for our beloved Institution to move forward.”
In a statement, the board of visitors president, John Adams, said the group was “supremely grateful to Major General Wins for his service to the institute during some very difficult times.”
For the past several years, even before General Wins’s contract was approaching renewal, an alumni group known as Spirit of V.M.I. had campaigned to end what it called a “woke” assault on the college, located in Lexington, Va.
State Senator Jennifer Carroll Foy, a Black V.M.I. alumna, said in an interview that Mr. Adams, an attorney and former naval officer, told her the board no longer wanted a Black superintendent. A spokesman for Mr. Adams, another V.M.I. alumnus who also voted not to extend General Wins’s contract, said Mr. Adams denies ever saying that.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, a Republican, has appointed 13 of the board’s 17 members since taking office in 2022, but Democratic state senators recently rejected two of the governor’s appointees. (One board member did not vote on Friday.)
Ms. Carroll Foy said the removal of General Wins, who served in the U.S. Army for 34 years, was particularly troubling given the Trump administration’s recent ouster of Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Brown is also Black.
Virginia’s former governor, Ralph Northam, a Democrat and alumnus of the school who served in the Army, also criticized the move. “Our country has purged too many patriotic military leaders this week, and now Virginia has done it too,” he said in an emailed statement.
General Wins, whose contract is set to expire on June 30, could not immediately be reached for comment.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Stephanie Saul reports on colleges and universities, with a recent focus on the dramatic changes in college admissions and the debate around diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education.
The board of Virginia Military Institute voted on Friday against extending the contract of Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins, the college’s first Black superintendent.
The school’s board of visitors, which voted 10-6 not to extend General Wins’s contract, did not give an official reason for the decision, which was made after a closed session that lasted more than two hours.
The move followed years of pushback from conservative alumni of the college who had objected to what they called General Wins’s “woke” efforts to increase campus diversity. And it followed accusations from a Virginia state senator that the effort to remove him was racially motivated.
The school is the oldest state-supported military college in the country, and all students participate in reserve officers training, a pathway to leadership roles in the U.S. military. General Wins, a V.M.I. alumnus, was appointed to the job in 2021, although he began on an interim basis the previous year. He was responsible for removing the statue of Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, a Confederate general, that had been prominently positioned on campus.
He also led efforts to increase diversity on campus following reports of “relentless racism” experienced by Black cadets published by The Washington Post in 2020, shortly before he took over. A subsequent state investigation concluded that there was a racist and sexist culture at V.M.I.
When the statue was removed, General Wins acknowledged Jackson’s ties to the school, where he was an instructor, and the strong opinions about the decision. General Wins said in a statement at the time, “Though change can sometimes be difficult, it is time for our beloved Institution to move forward.”
In a statement, the board of visitors president, John Adams, said the group was “supremely grateful to Major General Wins for his service to the institute during some very difficult times.”
For the past several years, even before General Wins’s contract was approaching renewal, an alumni group known as Spirit of V.M.I. had campaigned to end what it called a “woke” assault on the college, located in Lexington, Va.
State Senator Jennifer Carroll Foy, a Black V.M.I. alumna, said in an interview that Mr. Adams, an attorney and former naval officer, told her the board no longer wanted a Black superintendent. A spokesman for Mr. Adams, another V.M.I. alumnus who also voted not to extend General Wins’s contract, said Mr. Adams denies ever saying that.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, a Republican, has appointed 13 of the board’s 17 members since taking office in 2022, but Democratic state senators recently rejected two of the governor’s appointees. (One board member did not vote on Friday.)
Ms. Carroll Foy said the removal of General Wins, who served in the U.S. Army for 34 years, was particularly troubling given the Trump administration’s recent ouster of Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Brown is also Black.
Virginia’s former governor, Ralph Northam, a Democrat and alumnus of the school who served in the Army, also criticized the move. “Our country has purged too many patriotic military leaders this week, and now Virginia has done it too,” he said in an emailed statement.
General Wins, whose contract is set to expire on June 30, could not immediately be reached for comment.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Stephanie Saul reports on colleges and universities, with a recent focus on the dramatic changes in college admissions and the debate around diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education.
A version of this article appears in print on March 1, 2025, Section A, Page 16 of the New York edition with the headline: Board Votes to Oust the Virginia Military Institute’s First Black Superintendent. Order Reprints Today’s Paper
