More stories

  • in

    President of Northwestern University quits amid layoffs forced by Trump cuts

    The president of Northwestern University said Thursday that he was stepping down amid a turbulent period marked by clashes with Republican lawmakers and steep federal funding cuts under the Trump administration that forced widespread layoffs.Michael H Schill, who has led the institution for three years, has been under heavy scrutiny in conservative circles this year. The Trump administration slashed nearly $800m in research funding after sustained criticism from Republicans.“Over the past three years, it has been my profound honor to serve as president of Northwestern University,” Schill wrote in a message to students, faculty and staff. “In that time, our community has made significant progress while simultaneously facing extraordinary challenges. Together, we have made decisions that strengthened the institution and helped safeguard its future.”The university’s handling of campus protests over the war in Gaza placed Schill under fire by conservatives. During a congressional hearing last year, Republicans accused Northwestern of failing to adequately address antisemitism, with some Jewish advocacy groups even demanding his resignation.Schill acknowledged the difficulties in his resignation statement, pointing to the freeze on federal research funds among other challenges.“As I reflect on the progress we have made and what lies ahead, I believe now is the right time for new leadership to guide Northwestern into its next chapter,” he said. “Therefore, I have decided, in consultation with the leadership of the Board of Trustees, that I will step down as President.”The funding freeze, announced in April, was a major financial blow that led Northwestern to announce the elimination of about 425 jobs in July, about half of which were unfilled positions. Administrators conceded that the layoffs were “a drastic step” and “the most painful measure we have had to take”.Michael Blake, a former Democratic National Committee (DNC) vice-chair and a graduate of Northwestern, posted a strong objection on social media.“Northwestern Alum. Don’t be silent. Our President is resigning b/c of GOP pressure in accusing our Alma mater of being Antisemitic (which NU is not) while the Federal govt withholds funds for Black causes (Racist). Stand up for the current Cats and those who come behind us,” he posted, referring to the wildcats nickname of Northwestern students and alumni.Others were pleased with Schill’s resignation. Republican congressman Tim Walberg of Michigan, who also serves as chairman of the House education and workforce committee, said in a statement: “President Schill will leave behind a legacy of not only failing to deter antisemitism on campus but worsening it. These students not only deserve better, but the law requires it. Northwestern’s next president must take prompt and effective action to protect Jewish students from the scourge of antisemitism.”Schill’s departure comes amid a broader Republican campaign targeting elite universities, part of an effort launched in response to student protests over the Gaza conflict. Since then, Republican lawmakers and Trump officials have escalated pressure on higher education institutions, accusing them of failing Jewish students.The administration has increasingly relied on freezing federal research dollars, sometimes in the billions, to push universities toward its policy preferences. These moves have forced several institutions to reach settlements with the Trump administration in order to resume their funding. More

  • in

    Trump set to host US tech leaders at Rose Garden – minus Elon Musk

    When Donald Trump hosts leaders from the US’ biggest tech companies at a lavish Rose Garden dinner on Thursday night, there will be one notable absence. Elon Musk, once inseparable from Trump and a constant, contentious presence in the White House, will not be in attendance.The dinner, which will include Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Apple’s Tim Cook and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, is exactly the type of event where Musk would have sat at Trump’s right hand only a few months ago. Instead, the Tesla CEO stated on his social media platform X that he was invited but could not make it. He said he planned to send a representative. He spent the day on X posting a familiar stream of attacks on immigration and trans people.The White House did not respond for comment on why Musk would not be at the dinner.Musk’s absence, even if voluntary, is a stark turnaround from when Trump repeatedly joked following the election that “Elon won’t go home, I can’t get rid of him.” The vacant seat highlights a divide that has emerged between the two men since their very public falling out earlier this year, one that has seen Musk’s influence over the government wane despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars to reelect Trump during the 2024 election.Musk’s omission from the list of attendees also echoes one of the seminal moments of his political evolution, another White House event. In 2022, then-president Joe Biden failed to invite the Tesla CEO to a summit on electric vehicles over concerns it would draw backlash from autoworkers unions. Musk, who had not yet publicly aligned himself with the Republican party, lashed out at the White House for the snub and declared that he would not vote for Biden. The move proved enormously costly for Democrats.The incident clearly stuck with Musk, who like Trump has shown a tendency to harbor longterm grudges. Even on the day of Trump’s Rose Garden dinner, he reserved his ire for Biden rather than Trump, retweeting a clip of himself from 2023 addressing Biden’s snub with the post “I try not to start fights, but I do finish them.”In the ensuing years, Musk has taken a hard turn to the political right. He has turned X into a bastion of far-right influencers, whom he frequently retweets to his over 200 million followers. He has promoted false theories about Democrats conspiring to get immigrants to illegally vote en masse and embraced far-right political parties around the world. He also became Trump’s most vocal and deep pocketed supporter, contributing nearly $300m to the reelection campaign and Republican causes.Musk’s support for Trump placed him in a position of immense power after the president’s inauguration as the tech mogul established and led the so-called “department of government efficiency’s” (Doge) sweeping dismantling of federal agencies. It also turned him into a prominent guest at political dinners and events, only a year after the British government did not invite him to a major tech summit as he made inflammatory anti-immigrant posts that claimed a “civil war” would take place in the UK.Since Musk and Trump’s relationship imploded in May over policy differences – Musk railed against Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill – which then snowballed into Musk accusing Trump of being in the files pertaining to notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the xAI CEO has all but vanished from high-profile government events. Although Trump still praises Musk as a “genius”, he told reporters on Wednesday night that Musk has “got some problems” and the two have not been seen together since their public spat.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAs Musk has feuded with Trump and ceded his place in the White House, however, rival tech moguls have grown closer with the administration and filled some of the vacuum. Earlier this month, Trump hosted Cook, the Apple CEO, at the White House, who gifted him a 24-karat gold souvenir. Meanwhile, Trump aides have discussed cutting Musk’s government contracts, according to the Wall Street Journal, only to find upon review that doing so would endanger too many key operations.If Musk were to attend Thursday’s dinner, it would create an awkward arrangement as he is suing two of the companies in attendance – Apple and OpenAI, helmed by his former collaborator and now nemesis Altman. As with Trump, Musk has also attacked Gates for his ties to Epstein after Gates accused him of “killing children” through Doge’s cuts to foreign aid. More

  • in

    US justice department reportedly opens criminal inquiry into Fed governor Lisa Cook

    The US justice department has initiated a criminal investigation into mortgage fraud claims against Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, according to new reports, as a lawsuit she filed against Donald Trump over her firing makes its way through court.Lawyers with the justice department have issued subpoenas for the investigation, according to the Wall Street Journal.Last month, Trump moved to fire Cook over unconfirmed claims that she listed two properties as her primary residence. Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing and Finance Agency and a close ally of Trump, alleged Cook had lied on bank documents and records to obtain a better mortgage rate.Cook, a voting member of the Fed board that sets interest rates, said she has “no intention of being bullied to step down” and that she would “take any questions about my financial history seriously”.In response to Trump’s bid to dismiss her, Cook filed a lawsuit against the president arguing that her removal was unconstitutional and threatened the independence of the Fed. Cook’s lawyers say the firing was “unprecedented and illegal” and that federal law requires showing “cause” for a Fed governor’s removal.“An unsubstantiated allegation about private mortgage applications submitted by Governor Cook prior to her Senate confirmation is not [cause],” her lawyers said in court documents.In court documents, lawyers for Cook suggested that a “clerical error” may be behind the discrepancies found in her mortgage records.Cook was appointed by Joe Biden in 2022 for a 14-year term on the board that was set to end in 2038. She is the first Black woman to be appointed to the board.US district court judge Jia Cobb heard arguments for the lawsuit last week and said she will expedite the case, which is ultimately expected to be taken up by the US supreme court.Trump’s attacks against Cook come against the backdrop of a long fight the White House has waged against the Fed, which has historically been treated as nonpartisan.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionEarlier in the year, Trump threatened to fire the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, for not lowering interest rates, but ultimately walked back his threats after negative responses from investors. Trump also tried to accuse Powell of fraud over renovations at the Fed’s headquarters, which have cost more than anticipated.Abbe Lowell, Cook’s lawyer, told the Journal that “it takes nothing for this DoJ to undertake a new politicized investigation”. The justice department did not immediately respond to the Guardian’s request for comment.This is the third mortgage fraud inquiry the justice department has launched against Democrats and Democratic-appointed officials. Experts have called the pattern a type of “lawfare” as Trump and his allies use their roles to take down other officials.Last month, the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, appointed a special attorney to investigate similar mortgage fraud allegations the White House has levied against California senator Adam Schiff and the New York attorney general, Letitia James. More

  • in

    RFK Jr accused of ‘reckless disregard for science and the truth’ in Senate hearing

    The US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, faced the Senate finance committee in a tense and combative hearing on Thursday, during which lawmakers questioned his remarks expressing vaccine skepticism, claims that the scientific community is deeply politicized and the ongoing turmoil plaguing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).In a hearing lasting more than three hours and ostensibly about the Trump administration’s healthcare agenda, Kennedy defended his leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), claiming that his time at the agency will be focused on “unbiased, politics-free, transparent, evidence-based science in the public interest”.Senate Democrats on the committee began the hearing calling for Kennedy’s resignation. “Robert Kennedy’s primary interest is taking vaccines away from Americans,” ranking member Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon, said in his opening remarks. “People are hurt by his reckless disregard for science and the truth in this effort. I hope the very least, Robert Kennedy has the decency to tell the truth this morning.”Raphael Warnock, also a Democrat, called Kennedy a “hazard to the health of the American people”, repeating calls for him to step down or for Donald Trump to fire him.Last week, Kennedy fired the CDC director, Susan Monarez, less than a month after she was confirmed to her position. She is now mounting a legal case challenging her removal.Shortly after Monarez’s termination, several leading public health officials at the CDC resigned from their positions, citing frustration with Kennedy’s approach to vaccines and his management style.Kennedy said Monarez was “lying” about her claims that she was fired for refusing to sign off on the secretary’s new vaccine policies. Instead, Kennedy said that she was removed after admitting to being untrustworthy.The Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, was unconvinced – citing Kennedy’s prior characterization of the former CDC director as “unimpeachable”.“You had full confidence in her and you had full confidence in her scientific credentials, and in a month she became a liar?” she asked. Thom Tillis, the outgoing Republican senator of North Carolina, asked about the same contradiction in his questioning.Monarez’s lawyers responded in a statement to Kennedy’s comments, calling them “false” and “at times, patently ridiculous”. They added that Monarez would repeat her published claims “under oath”.Kennedy also justified wider firings at the CDC , calling them “absolutely necessary”.“We are the sickest country in the world,” he said. “That’s why we need to fire people at CDC. They did not do their job. This was their job to keep us healthy.”In June, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee – a move that defied a promise he made during his confirmation hearing to Republican senator Bill Cassidy, a physician who chairs the Senate health committee. Many of Kennedy’s replacements for the advisory panel have a history of vaccine skepticism.When asked about the changes to the advisory committee, and how that will change vaccine recommendations and scheduling, Kennedy said he didn’t anticipate changes to the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine.In an exchange with Kennedy, Cassidy noted the possible conflict of interest with some of the panel’s new members who are involved in ongoing litigation with vaccine manufacturers.Cassidy cast a critical vote to confirm Kennedy earlier this year. He had previously expressed a number of concerns about the health secretary’s historic comments that undermined vaccine efficacy. The senator has since been critical of a number of Kennedy’s policies, including his decision to cut half a billion dollars worth of mRNA vaccine funding – calling the move “unfortunate”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLast month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the new batch of Covid-19 vaccines, but placed restrictions on who would be able to access them. The agency has authorized shots for people 65 and older, who are known to be more at risk from serious illnesses from Covid infections. Younger people will only be eligible if they have an underlying medical condition that makes them vulnerable. Infectious disease experts say that this policy could prove extremely dangerous, particularly for young children.On Tuesday, Kennedy defended HHS’s handling of the measles outbreak that affected several states in an opinion piece. While the secretary branded his agency’s response as effective, public health experts said Kennedy’s own messaging around vaccines was muddied and confusing.Cassidy concluded his remarks at the hearing by telling Kennedy that his policies were “effectively denying people the vaccine”, sharing an email from a doctor friend who expressed confusion about Covid inoculation eligibility given the FDA’s new recommendation policies.Kennedy snapped back: “You’re wrong.”The Republican senator John Barrasso, of Wyoming, also a doctor, expressed similar concerns about Kennedy’s policies. “In your confirmation hearing you promised to uphold the highest standard for vaccines,” Barrasso said. “Since then, I’ve grown deeply concerned.”During a back and forth with the Virginia senator Mark Warner, a Democrat, Kennedy falsely claimed that there are “no cuts to Medicaid” under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – Trump’s hallmark domestic policy legislation that was signed into law in July.The congressional budget office estimates that around 7.8 million people stand to lose their health insurance over a decade, due to Medicaid changes under the law.Multiple Democrats on the committee had heated exchanges with the health secretary. Many of them pointed out the inconsistency between Kennedy’s recent support for the president’s “Operation Warp Speed” and his disparagement of the Covid-19 shot. He has previously called it the “deadliest” vaccine ever manufactured.At the hearing, Kennedy refused to acknowledge the wealth of data that shows that the Covid-19 vaccine has saved lives.“Trump has said the vaccine works, and has saved millions of lives. Your own process, on the other hand, has not been transparent,” said the Democratic senator Maggie Hassan, of New Hampshire. “You repeatedly choose to ignore data because it doesn’t match your preconceived notions and lies.” More

  • in

    Trump’s domestic troop deployments aren’t about crime – they’re about intimidation | Moira Donegan

    “We’re going in,” Donald Trump said on Tuesday, when asked whether national guard troops would be sent to invade Chicago. The comment came as reports emerged that national guard troops from Texas – not yet federalized under direct presidential control – were preparing to deploy to Chicago in the coming days, in defiance of the opposition repeatedly and forcefully expressed by the Chicago mayor, Brandon Johnson, and the Illinois governor, JB Pritzker, both Democrats.The White House and the president’s allies have claimed that the deployment is a response to violent crime in Chicago. This is a lie. Crime in Chicago has dropped dramatically over the past decades, as it has in every major American city – including Los Angeles, where Trump deployed the national guard and the marines earlier this year, and Washington DC, where armed federal agents have patrolled the streets for much of the past month. The deployment of armed forces to American cities – serving at his pleasure even when they are not officially under his direct command – has nothing to do with “crime”, except insofar as the administration has sought to redefine the term to mean Democratic governance, racial pluralism or the presence of immigrants. There is no violent crime in Chicago, or in any of these cities, that federal troops can be usefully deployed to quell.Instead, the federal agents who will probably invade Chicago in the coming days are there to serve a very different purpose. They are there to assert Trump’s personal authority over government actions, to intimidate populations that did not vote for him, to terrorize and kidnap immigrants and destroy their families, and to make sure that every American knows that even if they succeed in electing Democrats to run their cities and states, the Trump regime can send armed men to their neighborhoods who answer to Republicans.As Trump expands his military occupation of opposition-controlled cities, the chances of a violent confrontation between armed agents of the regime and ordinary Americans rise dramatically. American city dwellers have not yet been terrified into silent submission; many of us still retain the self-respect that has been engendered by a lifetime of democratic citizenship. These people will inevitably, and righteously, protest the Trump administration’s incursions. They will shout with outrage when they see their neighbors dragged into vans by masked men; they will jeer and mock the jackboots sent to terrorize them. Eventually, it seems inevitable that someone will throw a rock, or slam a door too loudly, or frighten one of the masked, armed men who knows he has been deployed by an unpopular ruler to suppress a once-free public. And one of those men, terrified and hate-filled and ashamed, might, in that moment, fire his gun. By sending troops into cities that do not support him, the Trump administration is assembling kindling in neat stacks around a frayed and fragile civic peace; they are pouring lighter fluid, and lighting a match. They are hoping for a conflagration that will provide an excuse for even more brutality.It seems almost naive to ask if any of this is legal. The supreme court has made it clear that the president – or, at least, this president – has virtually no limits on his authority under conditions of an “emergency”. That no emergency is in evidence in Chicago or any of the other opposition-controlled cities that Trump-aligned forces are invading is irrelevant: an “emergency”, like a “crime”, can be whatever Trump wants it to be. The supreme court will, eventually, either greenlight Trump’s actions or delay intervening against him for long enough that he will be able to accomplish his aims anyway.But lower courts are showing more willingness to check Trump’s more flagrantly illegal conduct – at least temporarily. In California on Tuesday, a court ruled that Trump’s deployment of the marines and the federalized California national guard into Los Angeles earlier this year violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits the use of federal armed services to enforce domestic law. But in Chicago, the Trump administration is trying a workaround: according to Pritzker, the troops that are amassing are un-federalized members of the Texas national guard – technically under the command of Greg Abbott, the governor, though unambiguously serving the president’s aims. If Pritzker’s claim – which Abbott’s office has disputed – is true, then the theory is apparently that Republican-controlled states have the authority to send their own troops into Democratic- controlled states – against the wishes and without the permission of the local authorities – to enforce partisan policy preferences.Pritzker, in an attempt to calm his people and prevent needless violence, implored Chicagoans to “not take the bait”. And certainly the ground forces will create some viral video moments that the president will enjoy posting to his followers. But the line between what is a mere performative display of power and what is an actual seizure of power is no longer quite clear. The boots and the guns, at any rate, are real.

    Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

  • in

    Trump’s killing of 11 alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers sets a dangerous precedent | Kenneth Roth

    The US military’s killing of 11 alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers traveling by boat in international waters in the Caribbean is an illegal use of war powers to address what should have been a situation of law enforcement. Unless this dangerous precedent is condemned and curtailed, it will enable US authorities to summarily shoot anyone they choose by simply declaring a “war” against them.Last month, it was reported that Donald Trump had signed a secret decree authorizing the Pentagon to use military force against certain designated Latin American drug cartels, claiming that they were “terrorist” organizations. On Tuesday, Trump wrote that on his orders the military had targeted Tren de Aragua “narcoterrorists”, accusing them of “operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro”, the Venezuelan leader, and being “responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere”.No reported attempt was made to interdict and detain the boatload of people. The video accompanying Trump’s statement suggests that the boat was simply blown up. When asked why the boat wasn’t stopped and its occupants arrested, Trump ducked the question and suggested that the killings would force traffickers to think twice before trying to move drugs to the United States.Under international standards for law enforcement, lethal force can be used solely as a last resort to meet an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. That rule makes sense because law-enforcement officials should ordinarily seek to arrest and prosecute criminal suspects. That is the best way to ensure they have committed the offense in question. It also respects the fact that for most crimes, the penalty upon conviction is a prison sentence, not the death penalty – let alone summary killing without trial.Trump has sought to evade those standards by in effect declaring war against Venezuelan drug cartels. Beginning with Richard Nixon in 1971, US presidents have repeatedly referred to a “war on drugs”, but that was a metaphoric war, a rhetorical claim that the effort was important, not a literal war. The distinction is important, because in genuine armed conflicts, opposing combatants can be summarily shot unless they are surrendering or in custody. There is ordinarily no duty to try to capture or arrest them.There was nothing in the encounter in the Caribbean Sea that is indicative of a war. There has been no suggestion that the alleged drug traffickers were firing at US forces or otherwise engaged in what could fairly be described as combat. The US military simply blew them out the water. It wrongly applied wartime rules in what should have been a law-enforcement situation.That Trump calls drug-trafficking suspects “terrorists” doesn’t change the rules for law enforcement. Terrorists are criminals, not combatants. Absent an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, they must be arrested, not shot.That illicit drugs such as fentanyl cause enormous harm also does not alter the rules governing law-enforcement operations. Much criminal activity causes serious harm, but unless that harm constitutes an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and cannot be stopped by other means, law-enforcement standards require arrest and prosecution, not the use of lethal force.Nor does it matter that the people killed may have been hardened criminals. Even despicable individuals are entitled to arrest and prosecution rather than summary killing.If war rules could be applied to suspected terrorists or drug traffickers by a mere declaration of “war”, the risks would be enormous. Law-enforcement officers could shoot anyone anywhere on the mere assertion, never proved in court, that they were part of the group against which a “war” had been declared. What just happened at sea in the Caribbean could be replicated on the streets of New York, London or Paris.Until now, the most visible example of a leader treating a “war on drugs” as a genuine armed conflict has been the former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte. Under his direction, Filipino security forces summarily killed thousands of poor young men. The international criminal court charged him for these executions, and he is now in custody in The Hague awaiting trial.Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator and a Republican leader on foreign policy, met the killing of the 11 with callous bravado: “I hope America’s adversaries are watching & now understand there’s a new sheriff in town.” But even a new sheriff must abide by policing rules. Trump did not.We have every reason to worry that the Trump administration intends to continue this lawless behavior. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, warned that such operations “will happen again”.To avoid normalizing such flouting of law-enforcement rules, the Trump administration’s killing of the alleged drug traffickers must be broadly and firmly criticized. If we close our eyes to this instance of misapplied war rules because of dislike for Venezuelan drug cartels or fear of illicit drugs, we risk setting a precedent in which our most basic right to life is suddenly dependent on whether Trump or other leaders decide in effect to declare a war against us.

    Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022), is a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs. His book, Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments, was published by Knopf and Allen Lane in February. More

  • in

    Latte-swilling ‘performative males’: why milky drinks are shorthand for liberal

    Another week, another somewhat fictional online buzzword to parse. This time it is the “performative male”, basically the idea that posturing straight men only read books to get laid, outlined in recent trend pieces including the New York Times, Vox, Teen Vogue, Hypebeast, GQ and millions of TikToks.According to the Times, this man “curates his aesthetic in a way that he thinks might render him more likable to progressive women. He is, in short, the antithesis of the toxic man.” Apparently these heterosexual men who read Joan Didion, carry tote bags and listen to Clairo are not in fact human beings who enjoy things but performative jerk-offs who don’t really care about any of that girly stuff and are just trying to impress their feminine opposites. As Vox put it: “think Jacob Elordi when he was photographed with three different books on his person, or Paul Mescal publicly admiring Mitski”. Reading! Enjoying music by women! Perish the thought.Each piece differed slightly in what it defined as the key characteristics of the performative male, but they all shared one detail: he drinks matcha lattes.This was unsurprising. For three decades the latte has been the favored blog-whistle of the trend piece writer. It signals liberalism, femininity, gayness, pretension, gentrification – ideally all of the above – so reflexively that its origins as an insult are rarely revisited.It began in earnest in 1997, when journalist David Brooks writing in the Weekly Standard coined the term “latte liberal”. He was trying, disparagingly, to give name to the crunchy consumerist leftism of the time, in which organic vegetables and world music had become part of the social justice hamper: “You know you’re in a Latte Town when you can hop right off a bike path, browse in a used bookstore with shelves and shelves of tomes on Marxism the owner can no longer get rid of, and then drink coffee at a place with a punnish name that must have the word ‘Grounds’ in it, before sauntering through an African drum store or a feminist lingerie shop.”Brooks wanted to hint that leftism is a luxury only the bourgeois can afford – an idea encapsulated by the earlier formation of champagne socialist. But the latte proved a stickier, more evocative symbol, painting liberals as soft and effete.In 2004, lattes really entered politics, when a Republican Pac ran an ad accusing presidential candidate Howard Dean of being a “latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving left-wing freak show”.Lattes also became a byword for gentrification. In 2000, when the Brooklyn neighborhood Williamsburg was, the Times bemoaned at the time, reaching “the point of hipster saturation”, the final straw was “a local Italian specialty store and a working-class institution … advertising the arrival of the Chai latte”. In New York Magazine’s 2005 feature L-ification, the publication mapped out how gentrification was spreading further east into Brooklyn along the route of the L train with little latte icons, a milky glyph of whiteness by that point understood by everyone.Noticeably, the latte form remains permanent, even as the type of latte shifts. Newt Gingrich accused New York mayor Bill De Blasio of “small soy latte liberalism” in 2014 – emphasising that the only thing more girlish than drinking a big dairy milky coffee was drinking a small vegan milky coffee. On Drake’s 2010 song Thank Me Now, when he’s asking the woman he’s left behind if she still thinks of him, he croons: “But do I ever come up in discussion / Over double-pump lattes and low-fat muffins?”Now the performative male has once again given rise to the idea that there is something inherently disingenuous about a milky beverage. Interestingly as the latte has changed colour, from white to green, the stereotype has expanded beyond the white liberal: matcha hails a diverse new generation of milky boys.The idea of the performative male started out mostly as a joke on TikTok, where knowing posters would show a man reading at the gym, for example, and joke that he was pretending. Contests in which men meet in parks to compete to be the most performative have been funny, postmodern, heterosexual versions of drag.But with each passing write-up, the knowing humorous element has been rinsed away, until Vox earnestly announced in its piece that the “MeToo movement showed us that even supposed ‘nice guy’ could be capable of alleged manipulation and abuse – that in fact, they could use their enlightenment as a kind of shield”. If you see a man with a matcha latte, you need to run!None of the pieces particularly wanted to reckon with the fact that, as Judith Butler put it, “gender identity is a performative accomplishment” to begin with, or that Arthur Schopenhauer was complaining in the mid-19th century that a performative reader “usually confuses the purchase of books with the acquisition of their contents”. Do we read in order to get laid? Only since forever.View image in fullscreenIronically much of this ribbing comes from the same people who decry a crisis of masculinity, and worry for future generations of boys who feel like they lack purpose and companionship. Yet in the world of the performative male, even having female friends and drinking milky coffee is a divergence from true masculinity.Why is the latte such an enduring emblem for this distrust – a way to call men you do not like effeminate?Partly it is the allegory of milk, the pursed mouth of a graphic designer on a coffee cup as a surrogate for the Madonna del Latte, the thousands of medieval depictions of Jesus nursing at Mary’s breast. Grown men drinking milk has always been laden in symbolism, the blend of nurture and eroticism evocative of a sexual infantalization. It is why so many films from A Clockwork Orange to Babygirl centre milk as a poison beyond a place of regular intoxication. When Kelis sings that her milkshake brings her boys to the yard, the lyric is so heavy in implication that the exact innuendo she is reaching for is irrelevant.Even the ancient Greeks used to have their own version of the latte joke, belittling the Persians who drank milk: Aristotle said Empedocles described it as “whitish pus”.But the milk in the context of the latte also turns coffee, a drink which was sold as fuel, bitter black stuff for TV detectives and the working man, into a sweet little treat. A latte fundamentally dilutes the taste of coffee and so it is easy to present those who drink it as watering down their wine. Even though the iconography of the latte liberal is now so strong it has stretched to drinks that do not contain any coffee to begin with. According to the performative male trend pieces, drinking a matcha latte indicates to women that you are soft, feminist-leaning and worldly (after all, it’s from Japan).Even though the latte is supposed to be this bastion of girlishness, women are not exempt from being chastised for drinking them, although the latte trope for them is more often a reflection of being superficial than performatively feminine. The logic of this makes little sense: latte liberal men are supposedly too European to be masculine, yet iced latte girlies are gormless Americans sucking on the straw of consumerism. No matter, the two sit side by side, one clutching a hot cup of simp soup, the other a pumpkin-spiced lobotomy. They are a pair one can project all their prejudices towards, without having to interrogate any of it too much.The irony is that hipsters and gentrifiers in coastal towns are rarely drinking lattes these days. They are much more likely to be sipping on a single origin V60 that’s been carefully weighed out on a digital scale. Indeed the stereotype could easily be flipped around – that it’s red states where complicated online Starbucks orders and Stanley cups filled with 32oz of latte abound. In the best survey of the coffee Americans actually drink and how it aligns with their politics by Diana C Mutz and Jahnavi S Rao, the differences were negligible. Although it is true that liberals do prefer lattes over conservatives (16% v 9%), the same research found liberals also prefer the more masculine-coded espressos over conservatives by a much bigger margin, and the vast majority of Americans prefer brewed coffee.But the milky latte stereotype persists because it is creamy and white (or green) and vaguely Italian. When GQ is asking “Are Matcha Men the New Soy Boys” you have got to wonder if gendering beverages has become the most performative act of all. More