Haynes, Billups lead George Mason to 80-77 OT win over George Washington

FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — Jalen Haynes scored 17 points and Jared Billups added six points in the second overtime as George Mason took down George Washington 80-77 on Saturday.Haynes added eight rebounds for the Patriots (14-5, 5-1 Atlantic 10 Conference). Darius Maddox scored 17 points while shooting 6 for 15 (2 for 6 from 3-point range) and 3 of 3 from the free-throw line and added six rebounds. K.D. Johnson finished with 15 points.Christian Jones led the way for the Revolutionaries (13-5, 2-3) with 16 points, four assists and three steals. Darren Buchanan Jr. added 15 points and eight rebounds for George Washington. Trey Autry had 15 points and six rebounds.Maddox put up eight points in the first half for George Mason, who trailed 35-29 at the break. George Mason outscored George Washington by six points in the second half and the teams finished regulation tied at 61. Both teams made two free throws in the final 20 seconds of the first overtime to force a second extra period. Billups finished 2 of 2 from the field and made two free throws with two seconds left in the second OT to secure the win.___The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar.

Washington residents leave ahead of Trump’s inauguration to avoid chaos

As Donald Trump’s inauguration nears, some Washington DC residents are opting to leave the city, seeking refuge from what they describe as “hostile negative energy.”With just two days until Trump takes office, many locals are planning to avoid the event altogether. Alejandra Whitney-Smith, a long-time DC resident, has chosen to spend the inauguration weekend in a secluded, technology-free cabin to distance herself from the city. “It coincides with my birthday, which I usually celebrate here. But after the election, I knew I couldn’t stay,” Whitney-Smith told The Guardian. She views Trump’s presidency as emblematic of an America many would rather not confront. Reflecting on the January 6 Capitol riots – an event her mother witnessed while working at the Library of Congress – she described the lingering fear and discomfort she associates with Trump’s influence. Many residents, like Tia Butler, are similarly unsettled. The memory of the January 6 riot and encounters with pro-life demonstrators after the 2020 election have left her reluctant to remain in DC during the inauguration festivities. Butler expressed frustration over what she sees as a reflection of deep societal divides. “It feels like the country would rather have a criminal in office than a person of color or a woman,” she said, referencing the challenges faced by candidates like Kamala Harris. While some residents flee, others are gearing up to celebrate. DC hotels were 70% booked by Wednesday, with rooms fetching between $900 and $1,500 per night. Conservative and Republican supporters have shown enthusiasm for the event, underscoring the contrasting emotions surrounding Trump’s inauguration. Despite the excitement among his supporters, Trump’s relationship with Washington DC has been fraught. He has publicly criticised the city, calling it a “filthy and crime-ridden embarrassment to our nation,” and has proposed radical changes, including recruiting Elon Musk to overhaul the federal workforce.

No more DEI or ESG: alphabet soup is off the menu in Trump’s USA

Asked to describe the vibe shift on Wall Street since Donald Trump’s re-election last November, a senior hedge fund manager replies simply with a link to Landman, a new drama series on the Paramount+ streaming service. Starring Billy Bob Thornton and Jon Hamm, and released just under a fortnight after Trump’s resounding victory, it follows the boom-time skirmishing of wildcat oil explorers in West Texas — think Mad Men for fossil fuels.Trump’s promises to rescind Joe Biden’s “industry-killing” environmental rules, pull America out of the 2015 Paris climate accord again, cut taxes and slash regulation on the financial sector have triggered what the same hedge funder says is “a risk-on unleashing of animal spirits”. Shares in oil majors, banks and tech giants are rocketing. Harold Hamm, an oil and gas billionaire who poured more than $4.3 million into political action committees supporting Trump, will celebrate the 47th president’s inauguration on Tuesday with a daytime party on the roof of the Hay-Adams hotel, a block away from the White House. Mark Zuckerberg, whose social media empire, Meta, gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, will co-host a black-tie reception in the evening. During the ceremony, Zuckerberg is expected to be seated with Jeff Bezos, whose Amazon also gave $1 million to the fund and whose Washington Post at the last minute declined to endorse Kamala Harris.The love-in between the former property developer once viewed as a joke by New York’s beau monde and America’s corporate elite has been accompanied by a bonfire of the initialisms. DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion employment policies; ESG, doing business with environmental, social and governance-based concerns to the fore; and LGBTQ+ or, at least, some of the more superficial gestures of support companies made towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people — were already falling out of favour in boardrooms as Covid-era utopianism buckled under the hard realities of inflation, rising interest rates and war in Ukraine.AdvertisementNow they are being engulfed in the flames of the second Maga revolution.“There had already been a decline in the use of awkward, inelegant and inconsistent nomenclature,” says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, senior associate dean for leadership studies at Yale School of Management, referring to ESG in particular. “An industry of opportunists and profiteers grew up around it and created a clunky bureaucracy of self-interested officials … If you look at things falling apart, Trump will be getting the credit for having catalysed it, but a large movement of companies away from this nomenclature was already under way.”Members of far-right Proud Boys group protest against Drag Queen Story Hour outside a library in Queens, New York in 2022YUKI IWAMURA / AFPAs long ago as July 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported on the rise and fall of the chief diversity officer, noting that thousands of diversity-focused workers had been laid off in the previous year. It said the trend was likely to continue after the US Supreme Court (tilted decisively to the right by the three judges Trump appointed in his first term) ruled that affirmative action in university admissions was unconstitutional and a group of Republican lawyers warned America’s biggest companies against using race-based preferences in hiring and promoting. Last year, a dozen companies including Motorola dropped diversity criteria from executive bonus plans after pressure from Strive, the anti-ESG asset manager founded by the Trump ally Vivek Ramaswamy. More, including Ford, Harley-Davidson and Molson Coors, said they would stop doing some diversity work after being targeted by the self-styled “anti-woke” activist Robby Starbuck.Vivek RamaswamyAPBut the return of Trump — who has suggested that white people should be compensated for “discrimination” they suffered under Biden — has set off a scramble that represents the opposite of the corporate response to the murder of George Floyd in 2020. A few weeks after the election, Walmart said it would stop funding a racial equity centre it set up after Floyd’s killing, end special training for staff, cease to consider race and gender when granting supplier contracts and remove LGBTQ+ items marketed by third-party retailers — such as chest binders — from its website.The most dramatic U-turn came from Zuckerberg, who spent Thanksgiving with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and was apparently told by Trump aide Stephen Miller that the incoming president would go to war on DEI culture. Having already loosened speech restrictions on its apps and jettisoned fact-checking practices — an overhaul that emerged shortly after the resignation of former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg as head of public policy — Meta announced that it would scrap its main DEI programmes. AdvertisementA memo from Janelle Gale, the social media giant’s vice president of human resources, said that “the legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the United States is changing”. She observed that the term DEI had become “charged”.Craig Coben, a former senior investment banker, says many bosses will be motivated to alter their stance on issues such as DEI primarily because of shifting legal sands. “The thing in the States is that people tend to use courts to advance policy objectives,” he says. “That’s tended to be used by one side [the left], and now the other side [the right] is going to do the same thing… Businesses’ priority is not to expose themselves and get sued. You have to work back from that to understand what they’re doing.”There is no doubt, though, that Trump has changed the general atmosphere. The day before Meta’s announcement, Elon Musk, his chief business outrider, reposted a social media message claiming that the Los Angeles Fire Department’s response to the Southern California wildfires had been hampered by its alleged preoccupation with DEI policies. “DEI means people DIE,” the Tesla tycoon said, without providing evidence. On the day of Meta’s reversal, Zuckerberg took to the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, speaking in favour of “masculine energy” and remarking that “a lot of the corporate world is pretty culturally neutered”. Facilities managers at Meta’s officers were instructed to remove tampons from the men’s toilets, put there for nonbinary and transgender employees.Zuckerberg and RoganThe backlash against ESG has been longer-running. The peak of the ESG movement — in which investors ordered companies to reduce carbon emissions and bear in mind stakeholders beyond those with purely financial interests — can be dated to 2021, when an activist won three board seats at ExxonMobil by arguing that the oil and gas giant needed to do more to transition away from fossil fuels. The campaign was backed by BlackRock, the world’s biggest investment institution with $11.5 billion under management. The year before, BlackRock had swung its weight behind ESG. Larry Fink, its co-founder and chief executive, declared that “climate change is different” and promised to put “sustainability at the centre of our investment approach”.AdvertisementRamaswamy singled Fink out for criticism in a speech to a conservative network in September 2021, saying that the fund management boss was telling companies “to advance a particular social agenda” (Ramaswamy later called Fink “king of the woke-industrial complex”). Fink, who had to have his personal security increased as he was dragged into the culture wars, eventually said he would stop using the term ESG as it had become “weaponised”. But before then, red states began pulling investments from BlackRock. West Virginia was the first, in January 2022. By the end of that year, political-protest redemptions from BlackRock amounted to $3 billion (in fairness, they were dwarfed by inflows from elsewhere). BlackRock’s name has become so loaded in conservative circles that a Texas district judge this month ruled that American Airlines had failed workers just by selecting BlackRock, which he said was tainted by “ESG activism”, to manage part of its pension scheme.Meanwhile, anti-ESG legislation by red states multiplied from six bills enacted in 2022 to 29 in 2023, according to the law firm Ropes & Gray. “When the anti-ESG movement started, I honestly thought it was going to struggle, but it’s been enormously successful,” says Joshua Lichtenstein, a Ropes & Gray partner.Trump fired a broadside at ESG in a video on his Truth Social network in February 2023. He said the movement was designed to “funnel your retirement money to the maniacs on the radical left”, adding: “These people are sick. These poorly performing woke financial scams are radical-left garbage that would never be funded on their own.”AdvertisementTrump is expected to get rid of rules brought in by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Wall Street’s regulator, requiring companies to disclose climate-related risks, even though they were already watered down. They were championed by the SEC chairman Gary Gensler, who is hated by the Trump camp and will stand down on Monday rather than allow the new president to fire him.Ahead of Trump’s second inauguration, all six of America’s biggest banks quit a net-zero group ultimately run by the billionaire former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg and Mark Carney, the former Bank of England governor running to lead the governing Liberal Party in his native Canada. BlackRock resigned from a similar group for asset managers, saying its membership had “caused confusion… and subjected us to legal inquiries from various public officials”.Bloomberg and CarneyGETTY IMAGESAnother set of initials likely to go up in smoke is WFH. Musk and Ramaswamy wrote a joint op-ed last November saying that Trump might force public-sector workers to go back to the office five days a week. The end of working from home for federal employees “would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome”, they said. Goldman Sachs has long insisted that staff do five days a week in the office. JP Morgan is expected to demand a full return to the office in the coming weeks.The routing of the DEI-ESG-LGBTQ+ consensus has caused outrage in some quarters. “It’s very distressing that corporate executives are caving in advance [of Trump’s second term] and pulling back from what they know is responsible investing,” says Brad Lander, who oversees $285 billion of public-sector pensions as New York City comptroller. “Climate risk is financial risk. It’s right before our eyes. Los Angeles is on fire. Absconding from responsibility for attending to the risks for political purposes is both craven and irresponsible.”Some believe the situation is more nuanced, however: that, just as there was a performative element to companies’ embrace of DEI and ESG a few years ago, there is a performative element to their newfound distaste for them. In its letter to clients explaining its decision to leave the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, BlackRock said it continued to see the energy transition as “a megaforce shaping economies and markets”. Analysts at the bank Jefferies suggested that corporate work on topics such as climate change would continue, but would probably not be branded as ESG — a trend known as “greenhushing”. AdvertisementA recent survey of 300 investors by the advisory firm Edelman Smithfield found that while 54 per cent agreed ESG would be largely defunct as a term in three years’ time, a majority said that ESG-type disclosures by companies were still useful. “Trump being president again doesn’t mean climate change doesn’t exist any more — it just means it’s less marketable,” says a communications professional who specialises in the financial sector.In other words, the sets of initials loathed by the Maga crowd are crumbling into ashes, as is the virtue signalling that accompanied their use. But the objectives they clumsily represented may yet endure the challenges of the coming four years.

USA Boosts Military, Names China Top Adversary

At the confirmation hearing for Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth on January 10, he and the senators painted a stark picture of the challenges facing the US armed forces. A recruitment crisis, with a 42,000-person deficit, has left the military struggling to meet its personnel needs. Meanwhile, costs continue to rise, readiness declines, and morale falters.Hegseth highlighted the Pentagon’s systemic failures, including its repeated inability to pass audits— a glaring inconsistency when compared to the stringent standards imposed on businesses seeking to contract with the Department of Defense.

It is crucial to recognize that the combined destructive power of all nations is sufficient to annihilate the planet many times over. This stark reality underscores the urgency of ending the cycle of creating enemies, which invariably leads to conflict and instability. Instead, the focus should shift toward fostering cooperation, addressing shared challenges ensuring a brighter, more prosperous future for all. By embracing collaboration over confrontation, the USA can lead the way in shaping a world where security and growth are achieved not through dominance, but through interdependencies, unity and shared progress

A deeply concerning issue also emerged during the hearing regarding the treatment of service members under the Biden Administration. Hundreds of thousands of military personnel who refused experimental and under-trial COVID-19 vaccine mandates were discharged, while those who experienced harmful side effects were left without compensation or support for themselves or their families. These vaccines, which would typically have undergone extensive animal trials under controlled conditions, were fast-tracked and wrapped in secrecy, with trial data hidden for 75 years.
Pete Hegseth describes how he was banned from serving with his National Guard unit for a tattoo of the Jerusalem Cross, the same Christian symbol that was on the floor of the National Cathedral during Jimmy Carter’s funeral.
In a powerful rebuttal to criticisms and personal attacks that he fathered a child out of wedlock only two months ago, Hegseth reinforced his outsider status as an asset, not a liability. “For decades, we’ve placed individuals with perfect résumés atop the Pentagon, and where has that gotten us?” he asked, pointing to inefficiencies and weakened readiness as evidence of the need for change.
He added, nearly every major defence weapons system suffers from excessive costs, underperformance, and significant delays, eroding the military’s competitive edge. Stagnant innovation and weakened standards have devalued meritocracy, while divisive policies like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) have further undermined morale. This environment has emboldened adversaries like China and Russia, increasing global instability.

He referred to the “valley of death” in the defence industry, identifying a critical gap where new companies struggle to transition innovative technologies from prototypes to deployment. This challenge arises from funding shortages, complex procurement processes, and uncertainty about military adoption, compounded by rigorous testing requirements and competition from established contractors.
He also alluded to the nuclear triad, a three-pronged military strategy designed to ensure a nation’s nuclear deterrence and survivability in the event of an attack, comprising land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) for rapid response, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) for stealthy and survivable retaliation, and strategic bombers that provide flexibility and recall capability. He said that the nuclear triad fell far short of its lethality, sustainability and efficacy compared to what it is being perceived by the adversaries.
During his speech he expressed his resolve to tackle the 42,000 recruitment deficit, end the divisive DEI, fight for service members wrongfully purged by Biden’s unconstitutional vaccination mandates, and restore the lethality in the armed forces.
Hegseth outlined a clear vision to revitalize the US military, emphasizing three core objectives. First, he pledged to restore the warrior ethos within the Pentagon which was based upon unwavering commitment to mission success, perseverance in the face of adversity, loyalty to comrades, and integrity in action. Key principles include always placing the mission first, refusing to accept defeat or quit, never leaving a fallen comrade, and upholding the values of honour, courage, and resilience. This ethos fosters trust, discipline, and unity, ensuring readiness and effectiveness in all situations.
Second, he committed to rebuilding the military by aligning capabilities with modern threats. This includes revitalizing the defense industrial base, reforming the acquisitions process to eliminate inefficiencies like the “valley of death” for new defence companies, modernizing the nuclear triad, and ensuring the Pentagon passes audits. Rapid deployment of emerging technologies was also a key priority.
Third, Hegseth stressed the need to reestablish deterrence through the defense of US borders, skies, and homeland, while strengthening partnerships and deterring aggression in the Indo-Pacific, particularly from Communist China.

During the hearing, the testimonies given by him primarily focused on making the military machine effective and lethal and partially expressed foreign ambitions of the USA. He emphasized an America-First approach to national security, achieving peace through strength while responsibly ending conflicts to focus resources on larger threats.
Pete specifically highlighted persistent and robust aggression in the Indo-Pacific, identifying Communist China as the primary adversary. Notably, he referred exclusively to China, seemingly downplaying Russia or any other nation as a significant threat. This focus reflects a broader strategic shift in US defence policy, where China has been elevated to the position of the primary geopolitical competitor.
China’s rapid military modernization, economic expansion, and pursuance of its economic interests in the Indo-Pacific perhaps have positioned it as a more comprehensive and long-term rival to US global influence. China has repeatedly declined this “No. 1 enemy” designation, instead emphasizing cooperation, shared prosperity, and a mutually beneficial future— rhetoric that contrasts sharply with US perceptions of its strategic ambitions.
Ideally, the USA should reconsider its defence policy, which has long relied on identifying adversaries as a catalyst for building its military-industrial complex and pursuing global dominance. This strategy, aimed at maintaining unrivaled military, economic, and geopolitical superiority, needs to evolve in the face of a rapidly changing world. Now is the time to reassess this approach and collaborate with global partners to establish a foundation for permanent peace, built on shared values, equitable distribution of resources, and mutual prosperity.
It is crucial to recognize that the combined destructive power of all nations is sufficient to annihilate the planet many times over. This stark reality underscores the urgency of ending the cycle of creating enemies, which invariably leads to conflict and instability. Instead, the focus should shift toward fostering cooperation, addressing shared challenges ensuring a brighter, more prosperous future for all. By embracing collaboration over confrontation, the USA can lead the way in shaping a world where security and growth are achieved not through dominance, but through interdependencies, unity and shared progress.

‘It’s not a country I want to live in’: Thousands march in Washington before Trump takes office

Washington: Tiffany Flowers still remembers how stunned she felt when she learnt Donald Trump had won a second term as president.On the night of his resounding victory against Kamala Harris, Flowers, who heads a voting rights coalition that defends elections, was in a “war room” with other community leaders, working non-stop to keep voters and poll workers safe.Demonstrators make their feelings clear ahead of Donald Trump’s return to the White House.Credit: AP“I was so busy that I didn’t actually sit down in front of a television to watch the results until almost 10 o’clock,” says Flowers, who was one of thousands of people protesting in Washington on Saturday ahead of Trump’s inauguration.“When it became clear he’d won, I just kind of went into shock. Truly. It didn’t even occur to me that it would be a shellacking like that. It just felt so gross, as somebody who truly does believe in the possibility of America and what we could be.”Lillian Fenske, who also attended Saturday’s rally, had an even more visceral reaction.“I threw up,” she says. “I really did. I mean, the stuff that he stands for, and the stuff that he wants to do, is going to strip rights away from so many people in America. It’s not a country I want to live in if it’s going to be like that, you know?”With the Washington Monument in the background, demonstrators protest against the incoming administration at the Lincoln Memorial.Credit: APWith two days until Trump is sworn into office as the nation’s 47th president, thousands of people attended “The People’s March” to make their voices heard.Some wore the knitted pink “pussy” hats that became a hallmark of the Women’s March after Trump was inaugurated in 2017 for his first presidency. Others were dressed as repressed women from The Handmaid’s Tale, or carried banners emblazoned with phrases such as “We won’t back down”; “RIP USA”; and “United For Change”.Lida Jones carrying the old, framed photo of her with her maid.Credit: Farrah TomazinAs protesters marched towards the Lincoln Memorial chanting, “We’re not going back,” one elderly woman, Lida Jones, carried an old, framed photo of a black woman standing in a garden with a young white child.“She was my maid while I was growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, and that’s me,” Jones says, pointing to the smiling girl in the photo. Asked why she was at the rally, she replied: “Because I’m fighting for rights for everybody to have the privilege that I have as a white woman.”The turnout was considerably smaller than the 470,000-strong Women’s March that took place after Trump’s first inauguration, in what was the largest single-day of protest in US history.But organisers say the event is nonetheless part of a longer-term resistance strategy to oppose the policies of the new administration, which include a mass deportation program to get rid of undocumented immigrants and the repeal of many of Joe Biden’s climate change initiatives.At Farragut Square, 70-year-old Kathy Betzhold from upstate New York carried a sign saying “No Tech Oligarchy”, a reference to Biden’s warning this week that “an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy”.“I’m really concerned about the money they have used to purchase power and the rise of big data and intrusion into individual privacy,” she said.Eric McKenzie was concerned about what the second Trump presidency would mean for action on climate change.Eric McKenzie at the Washington rally.Credit: Farrah Tomazin“Nothing that the Trump administration has ever said leads me to think that they take the problem seriously at all,” the 51-year-old from Greenbelt, Maryland, said. “They don’t seem to think that it is a threat [or] that the science is real.”And 15-year-old student Willow, who did not wish to give her surname, said she feared her rights as a young woman would be at risk under the new administration.“We’ve been fighting for years when really we should just be being kids instead of fighting for our basic human rights – and that’s just not fair,” she said.Placards at the rally, which organisers say is part of a longer-term resistance strategy to oppose the policies of the new Trump administration.Credit: Getty ImagesThe rally was a mostly peaceful affair, with law enforcement on high alert across the streets of DC for the next three days. One man in a MAGA hat carrying a large military-style backpack tried to provoke the crowd by placing himself at the front of the march but was escorted out by police as he told reporters: “This is a new transformation – God has appointed Donald Trump and whether we like Biden or Trump, we have to honour that.”The rally took place as festivities for Trump’s inauguration began in earnest on Saturday with a reception and fireworks display set to kick off at Trump’s Sterling Golf Club in Virginia, followed by a “victory rally” in downtown DC on Sunday and a candlelight dinner for the president later that night.The swearing-in ceremony – which has now been moved indoors due to extreme weather – will take place at noon on Monday, followed by a signing ceremony in the Oval Office and three gala balls: The Commander in Chief Ball, focused on military service members; the Liberty Inaugural Ball, in which Village People will perform for Trump’s supporters; and the Starlight Ball, which is geared towards high-dollar donors.Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.Michael Koziol is a journalist at the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. He has been Sydney editor, Sun-Herald deputy editor and a federal political reporter in Canberra.Connect via Twitter.

Trump’s not the tech bros’ puppet master. He may be the puppet

Some of the Three Wise Men showed up a little late this year, and not all together, but they’ve arrived with their gifts in time for the crowning of the new secular messiah. As the inauguration of repeat president Donald Trump approaches, they have delivered their gifts. Not gold, frankincense and myrrh – those gifts are so BC. Instead, they have delivered gifts that are precious in our year Anno Domini – gifts built of bytes and computations, with the ability to sway reality.Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Donald Trump.Credit: Graphic illustration: Monique WestermannFirst came space and sustainability entrepreneur Elon Musk. In 2022, he bought Twitter, for which he was mocked by many. It was, one business analyst declared, “one of the most overpaid tech acquisitions in history”. But in retrospect there might be a few other billionaires and institutions who now wish they’d seen its potential. He renamed the platform “X” and jiggered with the algorithm to enable “free speech”. The algorithm showed consumers when mainstream outlets sought to revise and minimise Kamala Harris’ role in the Biden administration’s deeply unpopular immigration policies. And it took Trump’s messages on the economy and immigration straight to consumers. By playing down context that didn’t suit Trump and amplifying it where it did, Musk’s gift to the King was his elevation.Amazon founder and owner Jeff Bezos showed up with his gift next. Readers might remember that he vetoed plans at the Washington Post to endorse Kamala Harris ahead of the election. But this was a mere trifle – a stocking stuffer at best. His significant offering to Trump was given via his wife. Bezos-owned Amazon has commissioned a $40 million “behind the scenes” documentary on Melania Trump. Those who have waded through her memoir, Melania, published last year – and dear reader, I subjected myself to that strange self-congratulatory Slavic self-help tome so that you can save your precious time – know that Mrs Trump’s fondest wish is to style herself as a kind of Kennedy. This documentary will give her the opportunity to tell the world how she is to be reported upon. No more of the “blink if you need help” memes from first-term-Trump this time. Melania, it will be established, is the most gracious, the most elegant, the most driven and intelligent First Lady ever to decorate the role.And then Facebook founder and now chief masculine energy at Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, showed up with his gift: a tribute to the Trumpian “vibe shift”. Zuckerberg says he’s removing fact-checking from Meta and moving to an X-style community notes system, because fact-checking has become censorship. “Governments and legacy media,” he claimed in an Instagram Reel announcing the changes, “have pushed to censor more and more.”To the untrained eye, it looks remarkably similar to Musk’s offering. But according to Georg Zoeller, who worked in senior roles for Facebook from 2015 until 2022 (after it had rebranded as Meta), Zuckerberg is substantially upping the ante. Meta has global reach – 3 billion users worldwide, almost half of the earth’s population – and Zuckerberg is signalling that, in Zoeller’s words, “Elon may have delivered America, but I am here, and I will deliver you the world”.If this is the case, we are looking at a tech-enabled way of doing foreign policy, in which the messages of the Trump-led US are pushed directly into foreign electorates, bypassing their governments and speaking directly to voters. Leveraging, as Zoeller puts it, “the total dependency on US tech, market and communications infrastructure to drive [Trump’s] interests past governments”.Before we start invoking the f-word though, as many are wont to do when Trump is involved, a reminder that this is not Orange Fascism. Because Trump isn’t the one wielding it.

How the United States Learned to Love Internet Censorship

Twenty years ago, my day job was researching internet censorship, and my side hustle was advising activist organizations on internet security. I tried to help journalists in China access the unfiltered internet, and helped demonstrators in the Middle East avoid having their online content taken down.Back then, unfiltered internet meant “the internet as accessed from the United States,” and most censorship-circumvention strategies focused on giving someone in a censored country access to a U.S. internet connection. The easiest way to keep sensitive content online—footage of a protest, for instance—was to upload it to a U.S.-based service such as YouTube. In early 2008, I gave a lecture for digital activists called “The Cute Cat Theory.” The theory was that U.S. platforms used for hosting pictures and videos of cat memes were the best tools for activists because if censorious governments blocked activist content, they would alienate their citizens by banning lots of innocuous content as well.That was a simpler time. Elon Musk was a mere millionaire, only a few years removed from reportedly overstaying his U.S. student visa (he has denied working here illegally). Mark Zuckerberg was being mocked for wearing anonymous sweatshirts, not a $900,000 wristwatch. And the U.S. was seen as the home of the free, uncensored internet.That era is now over. When Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20, videos of his oath of office will flood YouTube and Instagram. But those clips likely won’t circulate on TikTok, at least not any clips posted by U.S. users. In April 2024, President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan bill, the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, designed to force TikTok to sell the Chinese-owned app to a U.S. company or shut down operations in the U.S. by January 19, 2025. Yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the law. News outlets have reported that Trump is considering issuing an executive order to delay the ban, leading to speculation that Chinese officials might sell the platform to “first buddy” Musk. (Bytedance, the owner of TikTok, has dismissed such speculation.)Whether or not that happens, this is a depressing moment for anyone who cherishes American protections for speech and access to information. In 1965, while the Cold War shaped the U.S. national-security environment, the Supreme Court, in Lamont v. Postmaster General, determined that the post office had to send people publications that the government claimed were “communist political propaganda,” rather than force recipients to first declare in writing that they wanted to receive this mail. The decision was unanimous, and established the idea that Americans had the right to discover whatever they wanted within “a marketplace of ideas.” As lawyers at the Knight First Amendment Center argued in an amicus brief supporting TikTok, the level of speech suppression that the U.S. government is demanding now is far more serious, because it would prevent American citizens from accessing information entirely, not just require them to get permission to access that information.According to the Biden administration and its bipartisan supporters, TikTok is simply too dangerous for impressionable Americans to access. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s national-security argument in defense of the ban was that “ByteDance’s ownership and control of TikTok pose an unacceptable threat to national security because that relationship could permit a foreign adversary government to collect intelligence on and manipulate the content received by TikTok’s American users,” though she admitted that “those harms had not yet materialized.” The Supreme Court’s decision explicitly affirms these fears: “Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”We don’t yet know how TikTok users in the United States will respond to the ban of a platform used by 170 million Americans, but what happened in India might provide some insights.My lab at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst studies content on TikTok and YouTube, and a few months ago, we stumbled on some interesting data. In 2016, videos in Hindi represented less than 1 percent of all videos uploaded that year to YouTube. By 2022, more than 10 percent of new YouTube videos were in Hindi. We believe that this huge increase was due not just to broadband improvement and mobile-phone adoption in India, but to the Indian government’s ban of TikTok in June 2020. As we examined Hindi videos uploaded in 2020, we saw clear evidence of an influx of TikTok refugees onto YouTube. Many of the newly posted videos were exactly 15 seconds long, the limit that TikTok put on video recordings until 2017. Others featured TikTok branding at the beginning or end of the video.Like the U.S., India had cited national-security reasons for the ban, and it had a more defensible justification: India and China were then clashing militarily along their shared border. But TikTok was much more important to India than it is to the United States. We estimate that, when India banned TikTok in mid-2020, more than 5 billion videos had been uploaded to the service by Indian users. (Examining some of these videos, we see evidence that TikTok in South Asia might be used more as a videochat service to stay in touch with family and friends than as a platform for wannabe influencers.) Even now, more than four years after the ban, the only countries with more videos uploaded to TikTok than India are Pakistan, Indonesia, and the United States; we estimate that more than a quarter of TikTok-video uploads are from South Asia, while just over 7 percent are from the United States.When those Indian TikTok creators were forced off the platform, new Indian short-video apps such as Moj and Chingari hoped to capture the wave of users. They were largely unsuccessful—none of these small start-ups has achieved visibility in India to compete with YouTube and Instagram, both well-financed, U.S.-based businesses. In effect, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s TikTok ban was a subsidy to the U.S. companies Google and Meta. It was also correctly seen as evidence of the Modi government’s retreat from global democratic values and toward a less open society.Until recently, I’d expected the TikTok ban to have the same result in the U.S.: effectively creating a nationalist subsidy protecting domestic tech providers (who, oddly enough, have been lining up to donate to inaugural parties for the incoming administration). But American TikTok users are a creative bunch, and in the past week, enough of them have migrated to the Chinese social network Xiaohongshu—often translated as “Red Book” or “Red Note” in English—that the app now tops social-media-download charts on Android and iPhone operating systems. Xiaohongshu, initially created as a video travel guide to Hong Kong for mainland-Chinese tourists, has an interface that’s familiar to TikTok users, and Chinese users are welcoming American newcomers with a charming stream of invitations to teach conversational Mandarin or Chinese cooking, and tips on how to avoid censorship on the network.Chinese and American users aren’t likely to share space on Xiaohongshu for long. The Chinese government has generally required service providers whose tools become popular outside China to bifurcate their product offerings for Chinese and other users. Weixin, the popular messaging and microblogging app in China, is a separate platform—WeChat—in the rest of the world. TikTok itself branched off from the domestic-Chinese network Douyin. And even if Beijing, sensing a great PR opportunity, allows TikTok refugees to remain on Xiaohongshu, the same logic that allowed Congress to ban TikTok would presumably apply to any other Chinese-owned company with potential to “collect intelligence on and manipulate” American users’ content.Although I don’t think this specific rebellion can last, I’m encouraged that American TikTok users realize that banning the popular platform directly contradicts America’s values. If only America’s leaders were so wise.When I advised internet activists on how to avoid censorship in 2008, I included a section in my presentation called “The China Corollary.” Although most nations could not easily censor social-media platforms without antagonizing their citizens, China was big enough to create its own parallel social-media system that met the needs of most users for entertainment while blocking activists. What I could not have anticipated was that Americans would find themselves fleeing their own censorious government for a Chinese video platform with tight content controls.Trump might decide to get around the TikTok ban with an executive order stating that the platform is no longer a national-security threat. Or the Trump administration could elect not to enforce the law. Musk, Zuckerberg, or another Trump friend might purchase the platform. But for millions of Americans, the damage is done: The idea of America as a champion of free speech is forever shattered by this shameful ban.About the AuthorEthan ZuckermanEthan Zuckerman is an associate professor of public policy, information, and communication at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.More StoriesFacebook Is Hiding the Most Important Misinformation DataHey, Facebook, I Made a Metaverse 27 Years AgoExplore More TopicsDonald Trump, India, People’s Republic of China, TikTok, YouTube