Author

admin

Browsing

Despite being dead for more than 300 years, this Indian ruler is still making waves in the nation’s politics.

Aurangzeb Alamgir has become so central to India’s fraught political moment, his memory is leading to sectarian violence across the country.

The sixth emperor of the famed Mughal dynasty, he is considered by many detractors to be a tyrant who brutalized women, razed Hindu temples, forced religious conversions and waged wars against Hindu and Sikh rulers.

And in a nation now almost entirely under the grip of Hindu nationalists, Aurangzeb’s “crimes” have been seized upon by right-wing politicians, turning him into the ultimate Muslim villain whose memory needs to be erased.

Sectarian clashes erupted in the western city of Nagpur last month, with hardline Hindu nationalists calling for the demolition of his tomb, which is about 400 kilometers away.

Seemingly spurred on by a recent Bollywood movie’s portrayal of Aurangzeb’s violent conquests against a revered Hindu king, the violence led to dozens of injuries and arrests, prompting Nagpur authorities to impose a curfew.

As tensions between the two communities continue to mount, many right-wing Hindus are using Aurangzeb’s name to highlight historical injustices against the country’s majority faith.

And they are causing fears among India’s 200 million Muslims.

‘Admiration and aversion’

The Mughals ruled during an era that saw conquest, domination and violent power struggles but also an explosion of art and culture as well as periods of deep religious syncretism – at least until Aurangzeb.

Founded by Babur in 1526, the empire at its height covered an area that stretched from modern-day Afghanistan in central Asia to Bangladesh in the east, coming to an end in 1857 when the British overthrew the final emperor, Bahadur Shah II.

Its most well-known leaders – Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan – famously promoted religious harmony and heavily influenced much of Indian culture, building iconic sites such as the Taj Mahal and Delhi’s Red Fort.

But among this more tolerant company, Aurangzeb is considered something of a dark horse – a religious zealot and complex character.

Aurangzeb “evoked a mixture of admiration and aversion right from the moment of his succession to the Mughal throne,” said Abhishek Kaicker, a historian of Persianate South Asia at UC Berkeley.

“He attracted a degree of revulsion because of the way in which he came to the throne by imprisoning his father and killing his brothers… At the same time, he drew admiration and loyalty for his personal unostentatiousness and piety, his unrivaled military power that led to the expansion of the Mughal realm, his political acumen, administrative efficiency, and reputation for justice and impartiality.”

Born in 1618 to Shah Jahan (of Taj Mahal fame) and his wife Mumtaz Mahal (for whom it was built), historians describe the young prince as a devout, solemn figure, who showed early signs of leadership.

He held several appointments from the age of 18, in all of which he established himself as a capable commander. The glory of the Mughal empire reached its zenith under his father, and Aurangzeb’s scrambled for control of what was then the richest throne in the world

So when Shah Jahan fell ill in 1657, the stage was set for a bitter war of succession between Aurangzeb and his three siblings in which he would eventually come face-to-face with his eldest brother, Dara Shikoh, a champion of a syncretic Hindu-Muslim culture.

Aurangzeb imprisoned his ailing father in 1658 and defeated his brother the year after, before forcibly parading him in chains on a filthy elephant on the streets of Delhi.

“The favorite and pampered son of the most magnificent of the Great Mughals was now clad in a travel-tainted dress of the coarsest cloth,” wrote Jadunath Sarkar in “A Short History of Aurangzib.”

“With a dark dingy-colored turban, such as only the poorest wear, on his head. No necklace or jewel adorning his person.”

Dara Shikoh was later murdered.

A sudden shift

By now, Aurangzeb’s authority had reached extraordinary heights, and under his leadership the Mughal empire reached its greatest geographical extent.

He commanded a degree of respect and for the first half of his reign, ruled with an iron fist, albeit with relative tolerance for the majority Hindu faith.

Until about 1679, there were no reports of temples being broken, nor any imposition of “jizya” or tax on non-Muslim subjects, according to Nadeem Rezavi, a professor of History at India’s Aligarh University. Aurangzeb behaved, “just like his forefathers,” Rezavi said, explaining how some Hindus even held high rank within his government.

In 1680 however, that all changed, as he embraced a form of religious intolerance that reverberates to this day.

The zealot ruler demoted his Hindu statesmen, turning friends into foes and launching a long and unpopular war in the Deccan, which included the violent suppression of the Marathas, a Hindu kingdom revered to this day by India’s right-wing politicians – including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Members of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been quick to point out the cruelties inflicted on Hindus by Aurangzeb – forcing conversions, reinstating the jizya, and murdering non-Muslims.

He also waged war on the Sikhs, executing the religion’s ninth Guru Tegh Bahadur, an act makes Aurangzeb a figure of loathing among many Sikhs to this day.

This brutality was on display in the recently released film “Chhaava,” which depicts Aurangzeb as a barbaric Islamist who killed Sambhaji, the son of the most famous Maratha king, Chhatrapati Shivaji.

“Chhaava has ignited people’s anger against Aurangzeb,” said Devendra Fadnavis, the chief minister of Maharashtra, where Nagpur is located.

Muslims alleged members of the right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) burned a sheet bearing verses from their holy Quran.

Yajendra Thakur, a member of the VHP group, denied the allegations but restated his desire to have Aurangzeb’s tomb removed.

‘Neither praise nor blame’

Modi’s invocation of the man who led India before him is no surprise.

The prime minister, who wears his religion on his sleeve, has been a long-time member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing paramilitary organization that advocates the establishment of Hindu hegemony within India. It argues the country’s Hindus have been historically oppressed – first by the Mughals, then by the British colonizers who followed.

And many of them want every trace of this history gone.

The Maharashtra district where he is buried, once known as Aurangabad, was renamed after Shivaji’s son in 2023. The triumphs of his forefathers, the great king Akbar and Shah Jahan, have been written out of history textbooks, Rezavi said, or not taught in schools.

“They are trying to revert history and replace it with myth, something of their own imagination,” Rezavi said. “Aurangzeb is being used to demonize a community.”

Modi’s BJP denies using the Mughal emperor’s name to defame India’s Muslims. But his invocation of India’s former rulers is causing fear and anxiety among the religious minority today.

While historians agree that he was a dark, complex figure, and don’t contest his atrocities, Rezavi said it is necessary to recognize that he existed at a time when “India as a concept” didn’t exist.

“We are talking about a time when there was no constitution, there was no parliament, there was no democracy,” Rezavi said.

Kaicker seemingly agrees. Such historical figures “deserve neither praise nor blame,” he said.

“They have to be understood in the context of their own time, which is quite distant from our own.”

Back in Nagpur, demands for the tomb’s removal have gone unanswered, with some members of the Hindu far right even dismissing the calls for demolition.

Local Muslim resident Asif Qureshi said his hometown has never seen violence like that which unfolded last month, condemning the clashes that convulsed the historically peaceful city.

“This is a stain on our city’s history,” he said.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

If the idea of robots taking on humans in a road race conjures dystopian images of android athletic supremacy, then fear not, for now at least.

More than 20 two-legged robots competed in the world’s first humanoid half-marathon in China on Saturday, and – though technologically impressive – they were far from outrunning their human masters over the long distance.

Teams from several companies and universities took part in the race, a showcase of China’s advances on humanoid technology as it plays catch-up with the US, which still boasts the more sophisticated models.

And the chief of the winning team said their robot – though bested by the humans in this particular race – was a match for similar models from the West, at a time when the race to perfect humanoid technology is hotting up.

Coming in a variety of shapes and sizes, the robots jogged through Beijing’s southeastern Yizhuang district, home to many of the capital’s tech firms.

Over the past few months, videos of China’s humanoid robots performing bike rides, roundhouse kicks and side flips have blown up the internet, often amplified by state media as a key potential driver of economic growth.

In a 2023 policy document, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology identified the humanoid robotics industry as a “new frontier in technological competition,” setting a 2025 target for mass production and secure supply chains for core components.

Fears have mounted in recent years about how artificial intelligence – and robots – may one day outsmart humans.

And while AI models are fast gaining ground, sparking concern for everything from security to the future of work, Saturday’s race suggested that humans still at least have the upper hand when it comes to running.

The robots were pitted against 12,000 human contestants, running side by side with them in a fenced-off lane.

After setting off from a country park, participating robots had to overcome slight slopes and a winding 21-kilometer (13-mile) circuit before they could reach the finish line, according to state-run outlet Beijing Daily.

Just as human runners needed to replenish themselves with water, robot contestants were allowed to get new batteries during the race. Companies were also allowed to swap their androids with substitutes when they could no longer compete, though each substitution came with a 10-minute penalty.

The first robot across the finish line, Tiangong Ultra – created by the Beijing Humanoid Robot Innovation Center – finished the route in two hours and 40 minutes. That’s nearly two hours short of the human world record of 56:42, held by Ugandan runner Jacob Kiplimo. The winner of the men’s race on Saturday finished in 1 hour and 2 minutes.

Tang Jian, chief technology officer for the robotics innovation center, said Tiangong Ultra’s performance was aided by long legs and an algorithm allowing it to imitate how humans run a marathon.

“I don’t want to boast but I think no other robotics firms in the West have matched Tiangong’s sporting achievements,” Tang said, according to the Reuters news agency, adding that the robot switched batteries just three times during the race.

The 1.8-meter robot came across a few challenges during the race, which involved the multiple battery changes. It also needed a helper to run alongside it with his hands hovering around his back, in case of a fall.

Most of the robots required this kind of support, with a few tied to a leash. Some were led by a remote control.

Amateur human contestants running in the other lane had no difficulty keeping up, with the curious among them taking out their phones to capture the robotic encounters as they raced along.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court has ruled that a woman is defined by “biological sex” under the country’s equality law – excluding transgender women – in a case that is expected to impact accommodations for trans women in bathrooms, hospital wards, sports clubs and more.

The court ruling on Wednesday is limited to defining the term “woman” within the country’s Equality Act 2010, meaning trans women are no longer protected from discrimination as women, although they remain protected from discrimination in other forms.

But in practice, the impacts of the ruling are likely to be wider than the court suggested. The UK’s equalities regulator has said it will issue new guidance on single-sex spaces following the decision.

The ruling has also energized the polarized debate surrounding transgender rights.

Judges said the ruling should not be seen as the victory of one side over another. But trans rights advocacy groups have called that “an insult” and condemned the court decision as exclusionary, contradictory and concerning for the trans and non-binary communities.

The group of women’s rights campaigners that brought the case, For Women Scotland, popped champagne corks outside the court and said it was grateful for a decision that recognized the need for protections based on biological differences.

Here’s what the ruling means in practice:

Implications for equalities law and single-sex spaces

The head of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission said Thursday that it will issue new guidance on single-sex spaces by this summer.

Those spaces will likely include women-only bathrooms, changing rooms, hospital wards, hostels, prisons, sports clubs, domestic violence women’s shelters and more.

Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said in an interview with the BBC on Thursday that “the ruling is enormously consequential,” and it brings “clarity” that “single-sex services like changing rooms, must be based on biological sex.”

Falkner said that trans people can advocate for neutral third spaces, such as unisex toilets or changing rooms, given that “the law is quite clear” that they “should not be using that single-sex facility.”

Falkner also said the UK’s National Health Service must update its guidance on single-sex medical wards to be based on biological sex. Current NHS policy is that trans people should be accommodated according to the way they dress, their names and their pronouns.

The ruling will also have implications for policing and prisons. The British Transport Police said in a statement that it would adopt an interim position that “any same sex searches in custody are to be undertaken in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee.”

Meanwhile, many businesses and organizations have said they are reviewing the ruling and not yet making any changes. British media report that the EHRC has been inundated with questions from businesses and public bodies regarding what the ruling means for schools, office buildings and women’s charities.

Trans people remain protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic under the equality legislation. The law also protects against discrimination by perception, which is when someone thinks you are the opposite sex.

Impacts on women’s sports

The Supreme Court decision will impact women’s sports, but exactly how is unclear given that new guidance is in the works and many sports bodies and grassroots sports organizations already have their own policies in place.

Faulkner echoed the stance of World Athletics, telling the BBC that trans women cannot take part in women’s sports.

Guidance on transgender inclusion has already been published by all the sports councils covering England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as well as UK Sport, which supports high-performance athletes. But it’s not yet clear how that guidance will be updated.

“We are now considering what the ruling means for grassroots sports and clubs,” a Sport England spokesperson said in a statement.

What it means for transgender people

The trans community is “absolutely devastated, because this is clear that but there is no upside to this. We have been basically stripped of the right to exist within UK society,” said jane fae, one of the directors of the advocacy group TransActual UK.

Under that act, trans women could obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC) for legal recognition of their female gender. But following the Supreme Court Ruling, those certificates appear to be only relevant in terms of deaths, marriages and pensions.

While the UK equalities watchdog talked of “clarity,” trans rights campaigners have said the Supreme Court Ruling raised more questions than answers, especially when it comes to the utility of gender recognition certificates and enforcement of “women’s spaces.”

TransActual has criticized the court for not providing a clear definition of the terms “women’s spaces” or “biological sex.” The ruling says a biological woman is someone “who was at birth of the female sex,” but it’s unclear how intersex people fit into the ruling or what accommodations should be made for trans women who have female anatomy parts (like breasts).

Culture war divisions

Although the court said it was not its place to rule on public arguments on the meaning of gender or sex, the decision has taken aim at a central argument of trans activists and progressive groups — that trans women are women.

And in doing so, it has ignited fears of broader “culture wars,” divisive policies and new restrictions in the UK.

On gendered bathrooms, for example, “the UK has had a much more laissez-faire attitude… what we seem likely to be about to see is the sort of imposition of an American style, ‘this is how loos should be,’ sort of thing,” fae said. “It’s Trump-ian.”

Following the ruling, JK Rowling, who financially backed the case, posted on social media: “I love it when a plan comes together.” The author and women’s rights campaigner has been previously criticized for anti-trans comments.

Other campaigners celebrated outside the court, singing “women’s rights are human rights” and holding up signs reading “Fact is not hate: only women get pregnant.”

But the backlash has been swift. Other women’s rights groups and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations have condemned the ruling and said it rolls back protections provided by the Equality Act.

“Any backsliding should be of concern to everyone that stands against discrimination and oppression in all its forms,” said Scottish feminist organization Engender.

Stonewall, an LGBTQ+ rights charity, said that it shared “the deep concern at the widespread implications” of the court ruling. “It will be incredibly worrying for the trans community and all of us who support them,” it said in a statement, also highlighting that trans people are still protected against discrimination.

A coalition of pro-trans organizations and unions has called for a protest in London on Saturday, saying that the ruling “represents the culmination of the concerted transphobic campaigning we have seen in recent years.”

What it means for British politics

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has so far been silent on the ruling. But a UK government spokesperson said single-sex spaces “will always be protected by this government.”

“We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs,” the spokesperson said.

Starmer and the Labour Party have long struggled with how to address issues of sex and gender. The Supreme Court Decision means the prime minister can avoid wading into the divisive debate and point to the court’s language.

Meanwhile, the opposition Conservative Party has attacked him for past statements that trans women are women and calling for inclusivity in the debate.

“Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either,” Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said in reaction to the court ruling which see called “a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious.”

Badenoch has also called for a review of equality acts and the Gender Recognition Act “to ensure that they are there to prevent discrimination, not for social engineering.”

The government’s next challenge will be wrestling with how to ensure public bodies, businesses and organizations implement the changes surrounding single-sex spaces.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

There’s no denying that President Donald Trump is moving at warp speed during his second tour of duty in the White House.

‘We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years or eight years, and we are just getting started,’ the president said during his prime-time address to Congress and the nation last month.

And a few days later, the White House team touted, ’50 WINS IN 50 DAYS: President Trump Delivers for Americans.’

Trump has aggressively asserted executive authority in his second term, overturning long-standing government policy and making major cuts to the federal workforce through an avalanche of sweeping and controversial executive orders and actions – many aimed at addressing grievances he has held since his first term.

But the most recent national public opinion polls suggest that Americans aren’t thrilled with the job the president is doing.

The latest Gallup poll, conducted April 1-14 and released on Thursday, indicates that Trump is underwater, with a 44% approval rating and 53% disapproval rating.

Most, but not all, of the most recent national public opinion surveys indicate Trump’s approval ratings in negative territory, which is a slide from the president’s poll position when he started his second tour of duty in the White House.

Contributing to the slide are increasing concerns over the economy and inflation, which was a pressing issue that kept former President Joe Biden’s approval ratings well below water for most of his presidency. And Trump’s blockbuster tariff announcement two weeks ago, which sparked a trade war with some of the nation’s top trading partners, triggered a massive sell-off in the financial markets and increased concerns about a recession.

The Gallup poll is the latest to spotlight the massive partisan divide over the polarizing president.

Nine out of 10 Republicans questioned by Gallup gave Trump a thumbs up, but only 4% of Democrats said they approved of the president’s performance. Among Independents, only 37% approved of the job Trump’s doing steering the nation.

With the president reaching three months into his second term this weekend – he was inaugurated on Jan. 20 – Gallup is comparing his approval ratings with his presidential predecessors.

According to Gallup’s figures, Trump’s average approval rating during the first quarter of his first year back in office is 45%.

While that’s an improvement from his 41% average approval rating during the first three months of his first administration, in 2017, it’s far below previous presidents.

‘John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower had the highest first-quarter average ratings, with both registering above 70%, while Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan averaged between 60% and 69%. George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Joe Biden and Bill Clinton had similar average ratings of 55% to 58% in their first quarters,’ Gallup noted in its release. 

Gallup highlighted that ‘Trump is the only president to have sub-50% average approval ratings during a first quarter in office.’

But enjoying promising approval ratings out of the gate doesn’t guarantee a positive and productive presidency.

Carter’s poll numbers sank into negative territory less than two years into his presidency, and he was resoundingly defeated in his bid for re-election in 1980.

Biden’s approval rating hovered in the low-to-mid-50s during the first six months of his single term as president, with his disapproval in the upper 30s to the low- to-mid-40s. 

However, Biden’s numbers sank into negative territory in the late summer and autumn of 2021, in the wake of his much-criticized handling of the turbulent U.S. exit from Afghanistan, and amid soaring inflation and a surge of migrants crossing into the U.S. along the nation’s southern border with Mexico.

Biden’s approval ratings stayed underwater throughout the rest of his presidency, and he dropped his bid for re-election last summer.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Code Pink, the liberal antiwar group known best for disrupting hearings in their trademark fuchsia garb, may need to register under a 1938 law requiring disclosure of political behavior benefiting foreign entities or governments, according to a top Senate Republican.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote a letter Wednesday to FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi openly considering whether Code Pink, as well as the New York-based socialist ‘incubator’ The People’s Forum, must register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

‘The Department of Justice has a duty to ensure compliance with the [FARA, which] remains a priority tool to combat adversarial foreign governments from influencing public policy and opinion in the United States,’ Grassley wrote.

‘FARA provides the American people with much-needed accountability and transparency. FARA is a content-neutral law and does not require any entity or individual to refrain from certain types of speech or activities. It simply requires individuals to register with the DOJ if they are acting as an agent of a foreign government or enterprise attempting to influence U.S. public policy.’

Focusing particularly on China, Grassley said the CCP spent more than $400 million since 2016 to influence American politics, and that both Code Pink and The People’s Forum have ties to a wealthy Shanghai-based U.S. citizen-activist, Neville Roy Singham, and the CCP itself.

‘Mr. Singham has denied working with the Chinese government; however, in July 2023, Mr. Singham reportedly attended a Communist Party workshop about ‘promoting the party internationally,” Grassley wrote.

‘Reportedly, Mr. Singham shares office and staff with the Shanghai Maku Cultural Communication Company, whose goal is to ‘educate foreigners about ‘the miracles that China has created on the world stage.’ Further, it is reported that Mr. Singham’s news outlet is co-producing a show on YouTube that is partially financed by Shanghai’s propaganda department,’ he added, footnoting a New York Times report from 2023.

Code Pink was co-founded by Jodie Evans – Singham’s wife – and according to Grassley, it received hefty donations from groups tied to Singham.

Grassley, appearing to cite the Times, catalogued Evans’ reported criticism of the Uyghurs as terrorists, though they are considered by the U.S. government to be victims of human rights abuses at the hands of the Chinese government. He wrote that when Evans married Singham and ‘became a recipient of funds tied to him,’ she and Code Pink became ‘stridently’ pro-China.

The letter also cited a meeting between Code Pink and the House Select Committee on China, in which he said they ‘denied evidence of forced labor in Xinjiang, a public policy position that benefits China’s interests’ and separately urged the Foreign Relations Committee to vote ‘nay’ on funding a $1.6 billion anti-Chinese-propaganda campaign.

As for The People’s Forum, which operates a café and meeting space in Manhattan, Grassley cited a Free Press report finding Singham the ‘main funder’ of the group, which organized anti-Israel protests in Times Square after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks.

Grassley cited a tweet in which The People’s Forum responded to claims that it receives ‘dark money,’ and it goes on to say how it met ‘Roy Singham, a Marxist comrade who sold his company and donated most of his wealth to non-profits that focus on political education, culture & internationalism.’

Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., previously wrote to The People’s Forum demanding answers for alleged ties to the July 24 pro-Palestinian mass-vandalism protest at Washington-Union Station, and the broader ‘Shut-It-Down-4-Palestine movement’ nationwide.

In a statement, Grassley said, ‘Evidence suggests that The People’s Forum and Code Pink have been funded and influenced by Mr. Singham and the Communist Chinese government, both of which are foreign principals.’

‘The evidence also suggests that The People’s Forum and Code Pink have engaged in covered political activities that directly advance the Communist Chinese government’s political and policy interests.’

‘Secretive foreign lobbying and public relations campaigns by China and other adversaries undermines the political will and interests of the American people,’ he added, calling on Bondi and Patel to review any interactions between the groups and DOJ, and what the feds have done to assess their FARA eligibility.

Fox News Digital reached out to Code Pink and The People’s Forum, as well as two emails listed for Singham, but did not hear back.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The Trump administration rolled out a revamped COVID.gov website Friday showing the ‘true origins’ of the coronavirus, while admonishing Democrats and the media for discrediting the theory the virus leaked from a lab and alternative health treatments, and for imposing strict mandates. 

‘This administration prioritizes transparency over all else,’ a senior administration official told Fox News Digital Friday. ‘The American people deserve to know the truth about the Covid pandemic and we will always find ways to reach communities with that message.’ 

The website, which previously had focused on promoting the coronavirus vaccine to Americans, now walks readers through evidence supporting the lab leak theory, how former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci promoted the idea that COVID-19 originated naturally, former President Joe Biden pardoning Fauci for ‘any offenses against’ the U.S. he may have committed, and providing details on the origin of the ‘social distancing’ rules and mask mandates. 

”The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2′ publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was promoted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated naturally,’ the site states, before launching into five bullet points on the origins of the virus. 

The new site outlines that a biological characteristic found in the virus was not found in nature, bolstering the lab leak theory, while noting that Wuhan, China, where the first coronavirus case was found, is also home to China’s ‘foremost SARs research lab’ and that ‘if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced. But it hasn’t.’

The Trump administration’s CIA reported earlier in 2025 that a lab leak was the likely origin of the COVID-19 virus, which had been passed off by media outlets and scientists as a likely conspiracy theory during the early days of the pandemic. The Department of Energy under the Biden administration and former FBI Director Christopher Wray in 2023 also said evidence indicated the coronarius was the result of a lab leak. 

The website also walks readers through the origins of COVID-era rules, such as mask mandates and social distancing. 

‘The ‘6 feet apart’ social distancing recommendation — which shut down schools and small business across the country — was arbitrary and not based on science,’ it states. ‘During closed door testimony, Dr. Fauci testified that guidance ‘sort of just appeared.’ 

The website says of mask mandates: ‘There was no conclusive evidence that masks effectively protected Americans from COVID-19. Public health officials flip-flopped on the efficacy of masks without providing Americans scientific data — causing a massive uptick in public distrust.’ 

The website notes that content on the page was sourced directly from the House Oversight Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. 

‘Public health officials often mislead the American people through conflicting messaging, knee-jerk reactions, and a lack of transparency,’ the website states under a portion called ‘COVID-19 misinformation.’ ‘Most egregiously, the federal government demonized alternative treatments and disfavored narratives, such as the lab leak theory, in a shameful effort to coerce and control the American people’s health decisions.’ 

Many media outlets dismissed Trump in 2020 when he said he had seen evidence that the virus originated in a Wuhan, China, lab, before U.S. intelligence officials such as Wray and the Department of Energy reported that the virus likely originated there. 

Many outlets have since published articles showing the theory is credible, including the New York Times running a March column claiming the scientific community ‘badly misled’ the public in an effort to suppress theory, even after the paper’s own science writer called the theory ‘racist.’ 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A young girl collapsed near the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office while President Donald Trump spoke during a Friday swearing-in ceremony for former heart surgeon Dr. Mehmet Oz, who rushed over to assist the child. 

A White House official confirmed to Fox News Digital that the girl was a family member of Oz’s who fainted during the ceremony and that she has recovered. 

Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. swore in Oz to oversee the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The Senate confirmed Oz on April 3, and he is now tasked with managing nearly $1.5 trillion in federal healthcare spending. 

In addition to leading the Medicare and Medicaid services, he will oversee the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). He will be responsible for issuing decisions on how the government will cover procedures, hospital stays and medication. 

At the ceremony, Oz laid out his priorities in the role to advance the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ movement that Kennedy is spearheading, and instituting reform for Medicare and Medicaid. 

‘Healthy people don’t consume healthcare resources,’ Oz said in regard to the so-called ‘MAHA’ movement. ‘The best way to reduce drug spending is to use less drugs, because you don’t need them.’ 

‘Next big thing we want to focus on is modernizing Medicare and Medicaid,’ Oz said. ‘That’s how Americans will get the care that they want, need and deserve. Need to empower patients and providers, both the doctors and the patients, both have to be equipped with better tools.’ 

Lastly, Oz said he would seek to weed out any fraud or abuse within the Medicare and Medicaid systems. 

Medicare is a government healthcare program that provides coverage to roughly 65 million Americans aged 65 or older, according to the Center for Medicare Advocacy. Medicaid is a federal assistance program for approximately 72 million low-income Americans, according to Medicaid.gov. 

Oz received medical and business degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and became a household name during television stints that include ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show,’ and 13 seasons of ‘The Dr. Oz Show.’

Fox News’ Alec Schemmel contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard announced the release of the first batch of Robert F. Kennedy assassination files on Friday after teasing the news earlier this month. 

‘Nearly 60 years after the tragic assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, the American people will, for the first time, have the opportunity to review the federal government’s investigation thanks to the leadership of President Trump,’ Gabbard said in a statement released. ‘My team is honored that the President entrusted us to lead the declassification efforts and to shine a long-overdue light on the truth. I extend my deepest thanks for Bobby Kennedy and his families’ support.’

Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said in the same statement that releasing the files was ‘a necessary step toward restoring trust in American government.’

‘I commend President Trump for his courage and his commitment to transparency. I’m grateful also to Tulsi Gabbard for her dogged efforts to root out and declassify these documents,’ he continued. 

Likewise, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reacted to the files’ release on X on Friday morning, writing, ‘RFK Files have been released. Promises Made. Promises Kept.’

During a Friday morning appearance on ‘FOX and Friends,’ Gabbard said 10,000 pages had been released — none of which had previously been digitized or publicly viewed. Gabbard said the files included documents regarding the government’s investigation of the assassination and ‘questions and theories’ as the investigation played out, as well as State Department conversations and insight. 

‘The significance of this is huge,’ Gabbard said. ‘It’s been nearly 60 years since Senator Kennedy was assassinated. We’re obviously not stopping here.’

Gabbard also said that ‘just the other day, we discovered over 50,000 additional pages solely around Senator Kennedy’s assassination,’ saying she had ‘over 100 people at National Archives’ scanning through the documents in anticipation of a second release. 

‘Nearly six decades have passed since the tragic assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and these historic files have been hidden from the American people all this time — until now,’ a White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital. ‘In the name of maximum transparency, President Trump has released over 10,000 pages of the RFK files with more to come. There has never been a more transparent president in the history of our country than President Donald J. Trump. Another promise made and promise kept.’

Gabbard had previously mentioned the files’ drop on April 10 during a Cabinet meeting at the White House, saying at the time that more than 100 people had been ‘working around the clock’ scanning paperwork related to both the Martin Luther King Jr. and RFK assassinations and subsequent investigations. 

‘These have been sitting in boxes in storage for decades,’ Gabbard told President Donald Trump. Kennedy was also present during the meeting. 

‘They have never been scanned or seen before. We’ll have those ready to release here within the next few days,’ Gabbard said. 

The RFK files’ release comes as a result of Trump’s declassification executive order issued shortly after he started his second term. The order specifically seeks to declassify files on the assassinations of former President John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert and civil rights icon King.

Trump had previously promised to declassify the documents while on the campaign trail, saying at the time, ‘When I return to the White House, I will declassify and unseal all JFK assassination-related documents. It’s been 60 years, time for the American people to know the truth.’

According to the order, the director of national intelligence and other officials were expected to submit their proposed release plans for the RFK and MLK files on March 9. 

DNI and the attorney general were previously given a Feb. 7 deadline to submit their release plans for the JFK files. 

The Justice Department saw a fallout in late February after releasing a batch of Jeffrey Epstein files. Many of the documents publicized then had already been released during the federal criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former lover and convicted accomplice. 

Fox News Digital’s Louis Casiano contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A Washington, D.C.-based federal judge on Friday temporarily halted the Trump administration’s planned mass layoffs at the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau (CFPB), shortly after an appeals court narrowed her earlier injunction.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s order temporarily blocks the terminations, which would have slashed the bureau’s workforce by roughly 90%, as she weighs whether the planned layoffs violate her earlier injunction. 

Her order comes after plaintiffs in the case, which include the CFPB Employee Association and other labor entities, accused the government of violating her earlier injunction. The plaintiffs alleged these layoffs would take place on Friday evening.

Jackson noted on Friday that the agency was slated to carry out a reduction in force, or RIF, of roughly 1,400 employees — which would have left just several hundred in place. 

Jackson said that within several days of an appeals order narrowing her initial injunction, CFPB employees were told the agency would do ‘exactly what it was told not to do,’ which was to carry out a RIF. 

‘I’m willing to resolve it quickly, but I’m not going to let this RIF go forward until I have,’ she said during the Friday hearing, noting that she is ‘deeply concerned, given the scope and scope of action.’

Justice Department lawyers had sought to appeal Jackson’s order earlier this year, arguing in a filing that the injunction ‘improperly intrudes on the executive [branch’s] authority’ and goes ‘far beyond what is lawful.’

Jackson blocked the administration from moving forward with any layoffs or from cutting off employees’ access to computers at the bureau until she has time to hear from the officials in question later this month.

‘We’re not going to disperse’ more than 1,400 employees ‘into the universe… until we have determined that is lawful or not,’ Jackson said.

She proceeded to then set an April 28 hearing date to hear testimony from officials slated to carry out the RIF procedures. 

The plaintiffs in the suit filed their legal challenge in D.C. district court in early February seeking a temporary restraining order after the Trump administration moved to severely downsize the bureau. 

The court issued a preliminary injunction in late March, finding that the plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits.

The order directed the government to ‘rehire all terminated employees, reinstate all terminated contracts, and refrain from engaging in reductions-in-force or attempting to stop work through any means.’ 

The Trump administration appealed the order shortly thereafter.

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed Jackson’s order only in part, staying the provision dictating that the government must rehire the terminated employees. 

The appeals court also stayed the provision of the order prohibiting the government from ‘terminating or issuing a notice of reduction’ to employees the administration deemed ‘to be unnecessary to the performance of defendant’s statutory duties.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump on Friday said the U.S. will ‘just take a pass’ at peace efforts for Ukraine if Russian President Vladimir Putin refuses to agree to ceasefire terms. 

‘If for some reason, one of the two parties makes it very difficult, we’re just going to say ‘you’re foolish, you’re fools, you’re horrible people,’ and we’re going to just take a pass,’ Trump told reporters. ‘But hopefully we won’t have to do that.’

The president’s comments echoed those made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio early Friday morning following a meeting in Paris with special envoy Steve Witkoff and French President Emmanuel Macron, as well as officials from Ukraine, Germany and the U.K. — the first meeting of its kind, which signaled greater European involvement in U.S. efforts to secure a Ukraine-Russia ceasefire.

While Ukraine has agreed to both full and interim ceasefire proposals, Russia has delayed any agreement for weeks, though it is for the most part still believed to be adhering to a 30-day ceasefire on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

‘If we’re so far apart this won’t happen, then the president is ready to move on,’ Rubio told reporters in Paris following his talks, which he described as ‘very positive.’

‘We’re not going to continue to fly all over the world and do meeting after meeting after meeting if no progress is being made,’ Rubio said. ‘We’re going to move on to other topics that are equally if not more important in some ways to the United States.’

It remains unclear where the U.S. would stand in not only aiding Ukraine, should Russia refuse to end its illegal invasion, but whether Trump would go through with his previous threats to enact more sanctions on Russia. 

Last month, during an interview with NBC News, Trump said he was ‘very angry’ and ‘pissed off’ after Putin first showed signs of being unwilling to engage in a ceasefire with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

‘If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault — which it might not be — but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia,’ he said.

‘That would be that if you buy oil from Russia, you can’t do business in the United States,’ he added. ‘There will be a 25% tariff on all oil, a 25- to 50-point tariff on all oil.’

Trump would not comment on the ‘specific number of days’ Russia has before he determines whether it’s serious about ending the war, but he told reporters on Friday it needs to happen ‘quickly — we want to get it done.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS