The cancellation of Hamilton’s Kennedy Center run, a decision directly attributed to the Trump administration’s takeover of the institution, has ignited a firestorm of controversy. This isn’t simply a scheduling conflict; it’s a symbolic clash between artistic expression and political power, raising serious questions about the future of the arts under a conservative agenda.
The outrage is palpable. Many see this as a blatant attempt to silence dissenting voices and impose a specific, partisan viewpoint on a national cultural landmark. The Kennedy Center, historically a beacon of artistic excellence and inclusivity, is now viewed by many as a potential instrument of political manipulation, its programming potentially skewed to favor a specific ideology.… Continue reading
Driven by political hostility towards climate science under the Trump administration, prominent climate scientist Kevin Trenberth returned to his native New Zealand, citing diminished research funding and a politically charged environment. Similarly, researcher Rose Abramoff initially left for France due to self-censorship within the scientific community but later returned to the US, believing she could be more politically effective there. Both scientists highlight the challenges faced by climate researchers under administrations perceived as unsupportive of their work, emphasizing the need to resist self-censorship and continue advocating for climate action. While Trenberth opted for permanent relocation, Abramoff underscores the importance of remaining in the US to counteract future threats to climate research and policy.
Read More
Despite campaigning as proponents of free speech, President-elect Trump and his allies, including potential appointees Patel, Kennedy, and Musk, are exhibiting actions contradictory to this claim. Their rhetoric and proposed actions target the free press and those critical of the administration, suggesting a willingness to silence dissent rather than champion it. This includes threats against journalists, media outlets, and even potential primary challenges for dissenting politicians. A conservative lawyer familiar with the plans warns of a “brutal” crackdown on dissent. The notion of Trump as a free speech advocate is therefore demonstrably false.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker