The Trump administration announced on Monday that it was investigating the Harvard Law Review over allegations of race discrimination. 72 hours later, the journal asked prospective editors to disclose their race as part of the application process, writing in an email that it would use this information to select candidates from “diverse … backgrounds.”

The email, which was sent to all first-year law students, included a memo that encouraged applicants to “convey aspects of their identity,” including their race, through an optional “holistic review” statement.

“This statement may identify and describe aspects of your identity not fully captured by the categories on the previous page,” the essay prompt reads. It proceeds to list a slew of characteristics that applicants are invited to disclose, including race, socioeconomic status, and seven different kinds of disability—”physical, intellectual, cognitive/neurological, psychiatric, sensory, developmental, or other.”

Lawyers who reviewed the memo said it provided further evidence of discrimination at the nation’s top law journal and appeared to violate the Supreme Court’s warning, in its decision outlawing affirmative action, that essays may not be used to circumvent the ban on racial preferences.

“It’s a common tactic,” said David Bernstein, a professor of constitutional law at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. “The implicit claim is that if you are looking broadly at all sorts of diversity, illegal racial discrimination becomes legal. But that’s an absurd interpretation” of the law.

Though the prompt gives applicants 200 words, it does not ask them to explain how race affected their personal development or posed unique challenges—factors the Supreme Court said were lawful to consider. That omission is especially damning, said Dan Morenoff, the executive director of the American Civil Rights Project, as it seems to indicate that the law review is using the statement for unlawful purposes.

“It’s kind of them to so openly dispense with any pretenses concerning what they’re doing and why,” Morenoff told the Washington Free Beacon. That should “make the case move much faster.”

Harvard Law Review president G. Terrell Seabrooks did not respond to a request for comment.

The Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services both launched probes of the law review on Monday after the Free Beacon published documents showing that the journal routinely selects editors and articles based on race. The probes, conducted by each agency’s office of civil rights, are also investigating Harvard University itself and its connection to the law review, which claims to be independent from Harvard Law School.

Evidence against that claim emerged this week when The Editors reported that Ibrahim Bharmal, the Harvard Law Review editor charged with assaulting an Israeli classmate, had been chosen by a panel of Harvard professors to receive a $65,000 fellowship in the journal’s name. Titled the “Harvard Law Review Fellowship,” the program in fact selects fellows based on the judgments of a “faculty committee,” according to a Free Beacon review of a fellowship advertisement hosted on a Harvard grant database.

Bhamal, who received the award after he was charged, will use the money to fund a stint at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leader celebrated the Oct. 7 attacks.

If the government decides that there is no meaningful separation between the law review and the university, Harvard could lose billions in federal aid over the journal’s racial criteria. The Trump administration has already frozen more than $2 billion in grants and contracts to Harvard after the school rejected the demands of the White House’s anti-Semitism task force, a move Harvard is now challenging in federal court.

The lawsuit argues that the government flouted the procedures for revoking funds set forth by Title VI. The probes of the law review, however, do appear to be following those procedures, meaning Harvard would have less legal room to maneuver if the investigations don’t go its way.

The school is also facing a pending lawsuit by Faculty, Students, & Alumni Opposed to Racial Preferences, the group represented by former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, which last week sent litigation holds to every student at Harvard Law School instructing them to preserve the personal statements submitted to the law review. Harvard condemned the holds the next day and, at least initially, implied that students were under no obligation to comply with them.

The university backpedaled hours after being asked for comment, telling the Free Beacon that “Harvard takes seriously every valid litigation hold request it receives.” The law review also instructed its members to comply with the hold, but not before vowing to investigate who had leaked internal documents to the Free Beacon.

“We are looking into the matter,” the journal’s top editors, referring to themselves as the “Big Five,” said in an email last week. “Our inboxes and offices are open to anyone with information about these recent events.”

The probe appears to violate Harvard’s non-retaliation policy, Bernstein, the law professor, argued on X, insofar as the school “forbids anyone” from retaliating against a whistleblower who “opposes … unlawful acts.” Archived web pages indicate that the policy was scrubbed from a university website sometime after March 17.

The holistic review statement is evaluated by a committee composed of three editors, including the journal’s president, that in 2021 made the “inclusion” of “underrepresented groups” the “first priority” of the admissions process. That mandate does not appear to have changed in the years since. In January, the law review even voted down a proposal that would have barred the journal from considering race when selecting editors.

The selection process for articles is also shot through with racial preferences, which have affected the demographics of published scholars and the subjects of published scholarship. Since 2018, only one white author has been selected to write the foreword to the law review’s Supreme Court issue—long considered the most prestigious slot in any law journal—while the forewords themselves increasingly revolve around race and identity.

“I hope to show that the prison abolition movement can reinvigorate abolition constitutionalism,” the University of Pennsylvania’s Dorothy Roberts wrote in a 2019 foreword to the issue. “In turn, today’s activists can deploy the Reconstruction Amendments instrumentally to further their aims and, in the process, construct a new abolition constitutionalism on the path to building a society without prisons.”

The post Harvard Law Review Asked Prospective Editors To Disclose Their Race Days After It Was Hit With Civil Rights Probes appeared first on .

The Emmy nominations for “news” were announced this week, raising serious questions about the state of journalism in America. CBS earned a nomination in the Outstanding Edited Interview category for its controversial 60 Minutes segment with Kamala Harris in October 2024, which was widely criticized for its deceptive editing. CNN racked up several nominations, including one in the Outstanding Continuing News Coverage category for Donie O’Sullivan’s report on so-called misinformation, which featured an interview with the deranged journalist Taylor Lorenz.

Both nominations were immediately panned by critics. The 60 Minutes interview with Harris is the subject of a $20 billion lawsuit Donald Trump filed against CBS. The two sides began mediation this week in an attempt to settle the case. The Federal Communications Commission is also investigating whether CBS violated its “news distortion” policy by deceptively editing portions of the interview in order to truncate one of Harris’s signature word salads in response to a question about Israel. “Of course it’s nominated for best editing because it takes some serious talent to edit Kamala’s answer into something that’s coherent and understandable, which in the end they still failed to do,” White House communications director Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital.

WATCH: How 60 Minutes Cleaned Up Kamala’s Word Salad

O’Sullivan’s nomination is also raising eyebrows on account of Lorenz’s appearance in the three-part series, MisinfoNation: Extreme America. Opponents of murder and other normal Americans slammed Lorenz for suggesting that Luigi Mangione, the alleged assassin who gunned down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, was a “handsome [and] morally good man, which is hard to find.” She also bragged about the “audience growth” she experienced after writing and speaking out in defense of murder. For example, she described feeling “joy” after learning of Thompson’s death because, in her view, the healthcare executive had “murdered … tens of thousands of Americans.” O’Sullivan was criticized for nodding along and giggling like a leprechaun while Lorenz spewed nonsense. He went on to claim that political violence in America was “mostly” the product of “right-wing extremism.”

Lorenz, 40, has a long history of attention-seeking behavior. She got her big break in 2018, when she complained on social media about the quality of the $22 avocado toast she got delivered to her apartment. She enjoys hanging out with children, and was reportedly forced out at the New York Times for antagonizing star reporter Maggie Haberman, who had urged Lorenz to stop her obsessive coverage of Claudia Conway, the 15-year-old daughter of then-White House adviser Kellyanne Conway. She joined the Washington Post in 2022, but was forced out last year after calling Joe Biden a “war criminal” and then lying about it.

Emmy winners will be announced in late June. The National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and its international affiliates have a history of making dumb decisions based on partisan ideology. Andrew Cuomo, the disgraced former governor of New York, won an international Emmy award in 2020 for his combative anti-Trump press conferences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The prize was revoked the following year after Cuomo resigned amid multiple allegations of sexual harassment. Cuomo’s handling of the pandemic is now generally regarded as an abject failure.

The post Emmy Alert: CBS Nominated for Kamala Harris ‘Editing,’ CNN’s Murder Porn Gabfest With Taylor Lorenz Gets ‘News’ Nod appeared first on .

A top political adviser who worked for former speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) has torched Pelosi’s successor, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), for failing to mobilize Democrats against President Donald Trump’s administration.

Ashley Etienne, who helped craft Pelosi’s messaging strategy for most of Trump’s first term, echoed concerns circulating in Democratic circles that Jeffries “hasn’t shown enough backbone as a leader, and that his organizational skills are deficient at a time when strong, creative leadership is badly needed,” Politico reported following an interview with Etienne this week.

“Trump is just giving us all this incredible red meat,” Etienne told Politico. “I mean, incredible. I’ve never seen anything like this before. It’s like the biggest gift any party has been given by the opposition and we’re just squandering it.”

Etienne’s criticism reflects growing frustration among Democrats about Jeffries’s leadership as the party struggles to rally behind a national leader and lacks a frontrunner in the 2028 presidential primary. Recent polls from CNN and NBC News show that the party’s favorability has plunged to record lows of 29 percent and 27 percent, respectively.

Many Democratic officials have already called on Jeffries to step up and adopt a more aggressive stance against Trump, NOTUS reported last month. Rep. Jared Huffman (Calif.) said, “I am, personally, of the view that America needs to see a lot more of [Jeffries],” while Rep. Don Beyer (Va.) told NOTUS that “it’d be great” if Jeffries could emerge as “that one unitary Democratic voice who would be the counterpoint to Trump’s voice.”

But Etienne said Jeffries has been indecisive and slow to act. “He takes too much counsel and then takes too long to make a decision,” Etienne told Politico, suggesting that the House minority leader may not have “a handle on the caucus” or “a hand on how to actually land some punches on Donald Trump.”

Etienne also accused Jeffries’s team of deliberately distancing itself from Pelosi. Etienne said she offered to help Jeffries’s staff but that staffers told her, “The members don’t want any Pelosi.”

“I was hearing from leadership staff that the leadership on Capitol Hill right now wants to sort of move away from that Pelosi era—that they … don’t want to embrace anyone or anything that’s like Pelosi,” Etienne said. “Which I just think is the dumbest s-h-i-t ever.”

The post ‘Dumbest S—t Ever’: Ex-Pelosi Adviser Blasts Hakeem Jeffries for Fumbling Anti-Trump Messaging appeared first on .

Democrats and their media allies have been comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler since 2015. It didn’t work. It never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but… it might work now?

Liberal activist Larry David wrote an op-ed for the New York Times last month comparing Trump to Hitler, which a Times editor described as “different.” One day later, Politico published an “exclusive” interview with former vice president Al Gore, who “compared President Donald Trump’s administration to Nazi Germany.” A blogger at MSNBC slammed Trump for governing “in a fashion reminiscent of Nazi Germany.” On Easter, the Atlantic ran an op-ed by a Hitler historian about the Nazi dictator’s fondness for tariffs.

These efforts by liberal journalists and politicians to equate Trump with Hitler can be dismissed as partisan nonsense. What these comparisons fail to take into account are the many ways that Democrats are literally just like Hitler, according to an actual historical analysis based on objective facts. Here are five reasons why Democrats are the same as, if not worse than, Adolf Hitler.

1) Fascist fashion

Hitler loved tan suits because they symbolize authoritarian power. Paying homage to Hitler is arguably the one reason why anyone would ever wear a tan suit, but that’s exactly what Kamala Harris did on the first day of the Democratic convention in 2024. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have also worn tan suits.

2) Anti-capitalist canines

Hitler loved dogs almost as much as he hated capitalism. Sounds familiar? Elizabeth Warren, the anti-capitalist senator from Massachusetts, got a golden retriever before running for president in 2020. Coincidence? Almost certainly not. Warren named the dog Bailey, presumably after the character Miranda Bailey from Grey’s Anatomy, whose nickname was “The Nazi.”

3) Fearsome beards

After the successful D-Day invasion in 1944, U.S. intelligence officers grew concerned that Hitler would attempt to flee Germany in disguise. He might grow a beard, they feared. So they hired a makeup artist to create altered portraits of the Nazi dictator with various hairstyles. For reasons that defy innocent explanation, two politically ambitious Democrats—Pete Buttigieg and Chris Murphy—have both grown beards over the past few weeks.

4) Terrible Trains

Hitler, like the Democratic Party, was obsessed with high-speed rail. After seizing power in Germany, the Nazi leader ordered the initial construction of the Breitspurbahn, a state-of-the-art railway system that could accommodate speeds of up to 120 miles per hour. Democrats want to build a similar train network across the United States. In 2011, for example, Barack Obama proposed spending $53 billion to create a “national high-speed rail and intercity passenger rail network.”

5) Virulent anti-Semitism

Hitler didn’t like Jews, which is why his name is often invoked by Hamas goons and other terrorists who want to destroy Israel. A journalist for BBC Arabic was recently exposed for threatening to “shoot the Jews” and “burn [them] as Hitler did” on his Facebook page. Democrats and their allies at elite universities are afraid to condemn the Jew-hating Hamas sympathizers wreaking havoc on campuses across the country. Kamala Harris chose Tim Walz as a running mate because the more sensible option, Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, is Jewish and opposes terrorism. Al Sharpton, the notorious agitator who provoked an anti-Semitic riot in Brooklyn, remains an influential power broker in Democratic Party politics.

The post 5 Reasons Why Democrats, Not Trump, Are Literally Hitler appeared first on .