More stories

  • in

    Bahamas rejects Trump proposal to take in deported migrants

    The Bahamas has rejected a proposal from the incoming Trump administration to take in deported people, as the president-elect seeks to follow up on pledges to slash immigration.Donald Trump’s team has drawn up a list of countries to which it wants to deport migrants when their home countries refuse to accept them, according to NBC News.But the Bahamas said it had “reviewed and firmly rejected” the plan.Prime Minister Philip Davis’s office said his government had received a proposal from the Trump transition team “to accept deportation flights of migrants from other countries”.“Since the prime minister’s rejection of this proposal, there has been no further engagement or discussions with the Trump transition team,” the statement added.Other countries that Trump is considering include Turks and Caicos, Panama, and Grenada, sources told NBC.The president-elect based his successful White House run on vicious anti-immigrant rhetoric, blaming them for a supposed national crime wave and promising to carry out mass deportations.Trump’s team made no immediate comment on Thursday about the Bahamas’ rejection of the proposal, which appeared to reveal one part of how he plans to enact radical immigration reform when in office.The deportation plan could mean that people are permanently displaced in countries to which they have no links.It is not clear if the deported people would be allowed to work – or what pressure Trump may apply to get countries to agree, NBC reported.The US government has struggled for years to manage its southern border with Mexico, and Trump on the campaign trail targeted voters by claiming an “invasion” is under way by migrants he says will rape and murder Americans.At rallies, Trump repeatedly railed against undocumented immigrants, attacking those who “poison the blood” of the United States.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe has vowed to tackle migrant gangs using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – which allows the federal government to round up and deport foreigners belonging to enemy countries.Trump also promoted the fictitious story that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating residents’ pets.The incoming president last month said he was bringing back the hardline immigration official Tom Homan to oversee the country’s borders.Homan led immigration enforcement during part of Trump’s first administration.A British plan to deport its asylum seekers to Rwanda was dropped earlier this year when the Labour party took power under Keir Starmer after ousting the Conservatives. More

  • in

    Biden library reportedly under threat by Democrats enraged by Hunter pardon

    Senior Democrats are reportedly considering withholding contributions to Joe Biden’s future presidential library amid a mounting backlash over his decision grant a blanket pardon to his son Hunter.The threat has emerged as simmering anger among congressional Democrats – already building over the president’s insistence on seeking a second term before belatedly stepping aside as the party nominee in favour of Kamala Harris – has burst into the open over Sunday’s pardon, which Biden had previously vowed not to give.Axios reported that party grandees were considering taking out their “rage” on Biden’s library project. Planning for the library, in the president’s home state of Delaware, is being spearheaded by the White House deputy chief of staff, Annie Tomasini, and Anthony Bernal, senior adviser to Jill Biden, the first lady.“If they had their shit together, they would have been doing the work on this over the summer – right after he announced he was stepping aside,” the site quoted one unnamed Democrat as saying. “Now, it’s just too late. Hopefully they are rightsizing their expectations and budget!”Presidential libraries – a tradition begun by Franklin D Roosevelt – are generally funded by a combination of private donors, state and local governments, and university partners. Maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration, they are used to house presidents’ papers and documents after they leave office.A source familiar with Biden’s project played down the possibility of donations being withheld, telling Axios: “That sentiment hasn’t come up in a single donor conversation, and work is well under way.”However, the fact that it is being publicly mooted is a sign of the internal party disenchantment following the pardoning of Hunter Biden, 54, who was convicted of lying on gun ownership application forms and separate charges of tax evasion. He had been due to be sentenced on both convictions this month. The act of clemency came less than a month after a demoralising election defeat that many privately blame Biden for.Biden, in his statement, said his son “was treated differently” than other people who had been late paying taxes because they were undergoing addiction problems. Biden pardoned his son for all possible offences committed between 2013 and 2024 – foreclosing the possibility of the incoming Trump administration reopening a case against the younger Biden that might be driven by the president-elect’s often-repeated desire for “retribution” against his political enemies.The judge in the tax case, Mark Scarsi, accused the president of “rewriting history” in a ruling penned after the pardon. He added that Hunter Biden’s tax offences had been committed after the period of his drug and alcohol addiction.A procession of Democratic senators and congressmembers have publicly accused Biden of putting his feelings for his son above the national interest and handing Donald Trump an excuse to abuse the presidential clemency powers.Even Chuck Schumer, the Democrats’ leader in the Senate and normally a loyal ally of the president, damned him with uncharacteristic reticence this week, telling reporters “I’ve got nothing for you on that” when asked his view.But party insiders say the outrage is a lightning rod for lingering resentment over Biden’s refusal to drop his bid for a second term until it was too late for Harris or other presidential contenders to be stress-tested in primaries and launch a well-prepared presidential campaign.“The pardon is simply a resentment delivery vehicle, like dressing on lettuce,” Philippe Reines, a veteran strategist who helped prepare Harris for September’s debate against Trump – which she was widely viewed to have won – told the New York Times.David Axelrod, a former adviser to Barack Obama, said the pardon gave “a free throw for people who think they can gain political advantage” from separating themselves from an unpopular, outgoing president.“But,” he added, “there’s also genuine concern and anger about the way the last year went down.” More

  • in

    Trump promises a crackdown on diversity initiatives. Fearful institutions are dialing them back already

    In 2020, Donald Trump signed an executive order against “race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating” which would have set the stage for sweeping attacks on diversity initiatives in the public sphere. In January 2021, on his first day in office, Joe Biden rescinded Trump’s anti-DEI order and signed one promoting “racial equity and support for underserved communities”.Now Trump is returning to office, he expected to restore his directive and double down on it. The people that run diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at public and private institutions are expecting mass crackdown. Project 2025 has labeled them “woke culture warriors” and pledged to wield the full force of the federal government against their efforts to create a more equitable society.Trump and his advisers have already threatened the funds and accreditation of universities they have labeled the “enemy”, and pledged to dismantle diversity offices across federal agencies, scrap diversity reporting requirements and use civil rights enforcement mechanisms to combat diversity initiatives they see as “discrimination”.The multi-pronged attack is certain to be met with major legal challenges, but while they prepare for those, advocates warn about the ripple effects of an administration declaring war on inclusivity efforts.“The concern is the bigger footprint and symbol,” said Nina Ozlu Tunceli, chief counsel of government and public affairs at Americans for the Arts. “Federal policies do have a domino effect on other states, on foundations, on individual donors.”Last week, Walmart became the latest in a series of high-profile companies to announce a rollback of its diversity initiatives following a campaign of legal challenges by conservative groups. Other businesses and institutions small and large are trying to keep a low profile to avoid becoming the target of anti-DEI campaigns, those who work with them say.There are already concerns that institutions fearful of losing funding or facing lawsuits may overcorrect and dial back their programmes before they are required to do so, advocates warn.A climate of fearEven before Trump was re-elected, “educational gag orders” seeking to limit discussion of race and LGBTQ+ issues in school classrooms had been introduced in at least 46 states. Last spring, conservative legislators linked campus protests against the war in Gaza to DEI initiatives. Virginia Foxx, the chair of the House committee on education and the workforce, told the presidents of several colleges that her committee would be “steadfast in its dedication to attacking the roots of antisemitic hatred, including anti-Israel DEI bureaucracies”.Questioning by Foxx’s committee ultimately led to several resignations by college presidents.“That got everyone terrified, including private university presidents who previously had been pretty brave about these things,” said Jeremy Young, director of the Freedom to Learn programme at the free speech group PEN America. “It was just this sense that, they’re coming, they’re headhunting for leaders, and you just have to do everything they say or they’re going to fire you or they’re going to cut your budget.”View image in fullscreenEven where no laws have been passed, a broad fear of repercussions has prompted some campus leaders to cut back on DEI initiatives, noted Young.“A number of states have engaged basically in jaw-boning, where the lawmakers will go up to a university president and encourage them or threaten them to close their diversity office while dangling a threat of funding cuts or passing a law the following year,” he said. “So we’re seeing universities trying to comply with these restrictions, or with these threats, even though there’s no law compelling them to do so.”Young cited the University of Missouri, for instance, where campus leaders in July dissolved its division of inclusion, diversity and equity citing nationwide measures against DEI even though no such law was passed in the state.In Texas, where state law does ban DEI offices but exempts academic course instruction and scholarly research, the University of North Texas system began scrutinising course materials in search for references to DEI, in what Young called an example of overcompliance and a “complete overreaction”.It’s a domino effect that anti-DEI activists are exploiting, for instance by sowing confusion about the 2023 supreme court ruling, which was fairly narrow but is sometimes cited as evidence that all DEI initiatives in higher education are illegal, said Leah Watson, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Racial Justice Program, where she focuses on classroom censorship.“We are very concerned about the broad chilling effect, and we see conservatives misrepresenting the status of the law in order to further the chilling effect,” Watson said. “Overcorrections are happening, and things are being cut that don’t have to be cut.”Some institutions have attempted to protect their work by downplaying their language around diversity to ensure that members from states with restrictions in place can continue to access them. Others have changed language about eligibility requirements for fellowships initially intended to promote access to people of color so as to avoid legal challenges.“There are institutions that want to continue their DEI programmes and they don’t want to be sued and they are really in a hard place with how to do that,” said Watson. “People are trying to fly under the radar at this point.”The new administrationGoing forward, the Trump administration is “likely to be the most virulent anti-DEI administration that we’ve seen”, said David Glasgow, the executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging, which helps institutions navigate an array of recent legislative restrictions on diversity work.“People who do this work are nervous and anxious about what might be restricted but their commitment is still there, so it’s really about trying to figure out what they’re going to be able to do,” he added.So far, four states – Florida, Texas, Iowa and Utah – have banned diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives or offices in universities, a primary target in the battle against DEI. A fifth, Alabama, has severely restricted them.In Florida, the Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, also erased nearly all already approved state funding for the arts, ostensibly over a festival promoting inclusivity, which he dubbed a “sexual event”.View image in fullscreenThat may offer a blueprint for attacks on what conservatives see as “woke” culture under the incoming administration, said Tunceli, of Americans for the Arts.Institutions anticipating a similar backlash at the national level are already planning to emphasise projects the incoming administration may be more supportive to – like those celebrating the 250th anniversary of American independence, in 2026 – and to turn to alternative funding for those they expect will lose out on federal support.Many now believe that institutions will have to show bravery to uphold their values, even if it means risking funding. “What they need to do is find a backbone, and I say that with a lot of understanding and empathy for the situation they’re in,” said Young, of PEN America.“I worry when I see a university roll over for funding,” he added, calling on administrators to leverage their influence with alumni and their communities to stand up to legislators’ attacks. “A university that doesn’t have a new building is still a university, it’s just a poor university. A university that has lawmakers banning ideas and restricting the actions of the administration is really not a university at all.” More

  • in

    Joe Biden should pardon Reality Winner for her actions as a whistleblower | Margaret Sullivan

    In late November, Reality Winner – who turned 33 this week – finished her lengthy punishment for sending a government document to a news organization.It’s past time for her to be pardoned so that she can move on with her life and, particularly, her education. She wants to be a veterinary technician, get a good-paying job and move out of her mother’s Texas house, but having a felony in one’s background doesn’t help with any of that.“She doesn’t deserve to be punished forever,” her mother, Billie Winner-Davis, told me in an interview this week. “You would think that once you’d served your sentence, you’d be okay, but that doesn’t seem to be true.”A presidential pardon, of course, would help immensely, in removing the scarlet “F” from her record. And Biden, who pardoned his son Hunter just days ago, may find that the time is finally right since this, too, was a politically driven prosecution.Winner has been treated harshly – scapegoated for an act she intended to be patriotic.Because Donald Trump wanted to make an example of her, the US air force veteran and former National Security Agency (NSA) translator was hit with the longest prison sentence ever given for leaking government information to the media.Her crime? She sent an intelligence report about Russian interference in the 2016 elections to the investigative news organization the Intercept; the report indicated that Russian hackers had gained access to state-level voter information and apparently intended to use a “phishing” operation to hack it.“A public service” was how the well-respected investigative reporter James Risen described what Winner did. After all, he noted, a US Senate report concluded that most state election officials found out about the Russian hacking threat from the press, not federal officials, “who didn’t bother to notify them”.“And the main way the press found out about it,” Risen added pointedly, “was through Reality Winner”.Risen, a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter for many years, got to know Winner while he was the director of the First Look Press Freedom Defense Fund, which paid her legal bills.In an email to me this week, Risen said Winner is “incredibly smart and really nice, and was doing the right thing to help America”.But her punishment was meant to send a message – that leakers (or whistleblowers) would be given no mercy, no matter how much the information they shared was in the public interest. And of course, Trump has been desperate to term any evidence of Russian interference, no matter how clear or troubling, as nothing but a hoax perpetrated by the liberal media.The law is rigid in federal prosecutions of leak cases, Risen explained.“The fact that a leak to the press is a public service is not admissible in court when a whistleblower is charged with the disclosure of classified information – even when a Senate committee concludes that it was a public service.”Winner was denied bail and held in harsh pre-trial conditions for about a year before her trial. And her punishment included a strict provision that she can never be paid for telling her life story – whether in a book or through the several movies that have been made about her.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWinner’s attorney, Alison Grinter Allen, told me on Wednesday that the most helpful action for those who want to support a pardon is to communicate with their members of Congress. Online petitions don’t seem to be as effective in this administration as in past ones, she said.The lawyer worries about how Winner’s case might somehow be reopened in a new vengeance-seeking Trump administration through a newly weaponized justice department.“She’s already been targeted and made an example of,” Allen said.The best hope, she thinks, is a letter signed by multiple members of Congress supporting a pardon; she and others are working on that, but a deadline is looming: “We’re running out of president.”Reality Winner has served a harsh sentence for a patriotic, if illegal, act. She has a lot to offer the world if she’s allowed to move on.And so, Biden, in the short time he has left as president, has the power to do the right thing.In James Risen’s words: “She deserves a pardon.”

    Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

  • in

    Conspiracy theories and cosying up to dictators: why intelligence experts are spooked by Tulsi Gabbard

    In 2018, a Syrian dissident codenamed Caesar was set to testify before the House foreign affairs committee about the torture and summary executions that had become a signature of Bashar al-Assad’s brutal crackdown on opposition during Syria’s civil war.It was not Caesar’s first time in Washington: the ex-military photographer had smuggled out 55,000 photographs and other evidence of life in Assad’s brutal detention facilities years earlier, and had campaigned anonymously to convince US lawmakers to pass tough sanctions on Assad’s network as punishment for his reign of terror.But ahead of that hearing, staffers on the committee, activists and Caesar himself, suddenly became nervous: was it safe to hold the testimony in front of Tulsi Gabbard, the Hawaii congresswoman on the committee who just a year earlier had traveled to Damascus of her own volition to meet with Assad?Could she record Caesar’s voice, they asked, or potentially send a photograph of the secret witness back to the same contacts who had brokered her meeting with the Syrian president?View image in fullscreen“There was genuine concern by Democrats in her own party, and Republicans and us and Caesar, about how were we going to do this?” said Mouaz Moustafa, the executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, an activist group, who had previously traveled with Gabbard in Syria in 2015. “With the member sitting on this committee that we believe would give any intelligence she has to Assad, Russia and Iran, all of which would have wanted to kill Caesar.”During a congressional trip in 2015, Moustafa recalled, Gabbard had asked three young Syrian girls whether the airstrike they had narrowly survived may not have been launched by Assad, but rather by the terrorist group Isis. The one problem? Isis did not have an air force.Photographs from the 2018 briefing showed a heavily disguised Caesar sitting in a hoodie and mask giving testimony before the House committee.“I often disguise [witnesses],” said Moustafa, who had worked closely with Caesar and served as his translator. “But that day I was especially wary of Tulsi.”There is no evidence that Gabbard sought to pass any information about the Syrian whistleblower to Damascus or any other country, nor that she has any documented connection to other intelligence agencies.But within Washington foreign policy circles and the tightly knit intelligence community, Gabbard has long been seen as dangerous; some have worried that she seems inclined toward conspiracy theories and cosying up to dictators. Others, including the former secretary of state and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, have gone further, calling her a “Russian asset”.Those concerns have been heightened by Gabbard’s nomination under Donald Trump to the post of director of national intelligence, a senior cabinet-level position with access to classified materials from across the 18 US intelligence agencies, and shaping that information for the president’s daily briefing. The role would allow her to access and declassify information at her discretion, and also direct some intelligence-sharing with US allies around the world.“There is real concern about her contacts [in Syria] and that she does not share the same sympathies and values as the intelligence community,” said a person familiar with discussions among senior intelligence officials. “She is historically unfit.”View image in fullscreenGabbard and her supporters have denounced those attacks as a smear, saying that her history of anti-interventionism in Syria and Ukraine has been misrepresented as a kind of “cold war 2.0”.In Washington, she has staked out a unique foreign policy position as a strong supporter of Israel and the “war on terror” – but also as a critic of US rivalries with countries like Russia and Iran (she strongly criticised Trump’s decision to assassinate the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani as an “illegal and unconstitutional act of war”).“When it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk,” she told a Hawaiian newspaper in 2016. “When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”Jeremy Scahill, the leftwing US journalist and activist, wrote that to “pretend that Gabbard somehow poses a more grave danger to US security than those in power after 9/11 or throughout the long bloody history of US interventions and the resulting blowback is a lot of hype and hysteria”.But Gabbard has repeatedly shared conspiracy theories, including claiming shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine that there are “25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine which if breached would release & spread deadly pathogens to US/world”. In fact, the US program stemming back to the 1990s is directed at better securing labs which focus on infectious disease outbreaks.Days after Russia invaded Ukraine, with Kyiv engaged in a desperate defense of the country’s sovereignty, Gabbard said: “It’s time to put geopolitics aside and embrace the spirit of aloha, respect and love, for the Ukrainian people by coming to an agreement that Ukraine will be a neutral country.”View image in fullscreenAnd she has repeatedly supported dictators, including Assad, suggesting that reports of the 2013 and 2017 chemical weapons attacks were false, and calling for the US to “join hands” with Moscow following its 2015 intervention in Syria.Establishment Democrats and Republicans have openly questioned whether or not she poses a threat to national security.“I worry what might happen to untold numbers of American assets if someone as reckless, inexperienced, and outright disloyal as Gabbard were DNI,” wrote Adam Kinzinger, a former congressman who served on the foreign affairs committee with Gabbard in 2018 when Caesar testified.The person close to the intelligence community said that there were continuing concerns about Gabbard’s contacts in the Middle East, stemming back to the controversial 2017 meeting with Assad – an encounter that Gabbard has insisted she does not regret.Those contacts may be explored during a Senate confirmation hearing early next year, the person said.Gabbard was briefly placed on a Transportation Security Administration watchlist because of her overseas travel patterns and foreign connections, CNN reported last month, but was later removed.She does not have a background in intelligence, although the Hawaii native served in the army national guard for more than two decades, and has deployed to Iraq and Kuwait.Moreover, there are concerns that her choice could affect intelligence sharing among US foreign allies, including the tightly knit Five Eyes intelligence group that includes the US, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as Nato and allies in Japan and South Korea.“Much of the intelligence we get, at least from the human collector side, is from our partners,” said John Sipher, formerly deputy director of the CIA’s Russia operations, noting that the cooperation was usually informal, “personality- and trust-based”.“They’re going to be really hesitant to pass [information] to a place that that is becoming more partisan and less professional … they would be making their own checklist: ‘Hey, this sensitive thing that we would in the past have passed to the CIA that could do us damage if it becomes public … Let’s just not do that this time.’” More

  • in

    Trump requests dismissal of charges in Georgia election interference case

    Donald Trump’s attorney in Georgia has asked the state’s appellate court to dismiss election interference charges against the president-elect, arguing that a sitting president “is completely immune from indictment or any criminal process, state or federal”.The filing by attorney Steve Sadow before the Georgia court of appeals asks the court to dismiss Trump’s appeal of a lower-court decision to allow Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis to remain as prosecutor on the case, because the Fulton county superior court no longer has jurisdiction, given Trump’s electoral victory.The filing cites the Department of Justice’s decision to end federal prosecutions against Trump last month, and a finding in 2000 by the Office of Legal Counsel that the president cannot be subject to local prosecutors’ criminal enforcement.“The constitution forbids ‘plac[ing] into the hands of a single prosecutor or grand jury the practical power to interfere with the ability of a popularly elected president to carry out his constitutional functions’,” Sadow wrote, quoting the OLC memo.That memo emerged in the wake of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, when perjury charges were being considered in the scandal over his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The rule was to be applied to federal prosecutions, but the office concluded as a matter of law that the prohibition was categorical – that it did not matter what the charges were – as long as the president was still in office.Sadow’s filing does not ask the court to dismiss the case against the remaining co-defendants in the election interference case, who do not enjoy the same constitutional protections as a president.Trump faces eight charges in Georgia, including a racketeering charge over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election result in the state, after Georgia voted for Joe Biden to become US president. Trump pleaded not guilty to the sprawling 2020 election interference case in Fulton county last year along with 18 other co-defendants. Four have since taken plea deals and agreed to testify against the other defendants.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe case has been on hold since June, when the appeals court paused proceedings to consider an appeal asking for Willis to be removed from the case. Defendants argue that Willis’s relationship with former special prosecutor Nathan Wade created an impermissible conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety. More

  • in

    Trump makes U-turn on top White House lawyer pick

    Donald Trump announced on Wednesday he was appointing David Warrington to serve as the White House counsel, abruptly changing his mind about who will be the top lawyer in the incoming administration as he moves his original pick to the new department of government efficiency.The move means Warrington, a longtime Trump lawyer who was also the Trump campaign’s general counsel, will effectively be the most prominent legal adviser to Trump in the day-to-day running of the West Wing.“Dave will lead the office of the White House counsel, and serve as the top attorney in the White House. Dave has represented me well as my personal attorney, and as general counsel for my presidential campaign,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.Warrington has been a low-profile but consistent fixture in Trump’s legal orbit for years, leading the campaign’s pre-election litigation with the federal election commission and civil cases, including efforts to ban Trump from the ballot over the January 6 Capitol attack.Warrington had been in contention to be White House counsel in the days after the election – it is typical for the general counsel on the presidential campaign to get the White House counsel job – until Trump decided he wanted the Republican lawyer Bill McGinley instead.The precise details about why Trump changed his mind are unclear.The Trump transition team’s “War Room” account said in a post on X that McGinley was moved to the department of government efficiency because the agency, which is expected to be part of the Office of Management and Budget, needed its own lawyer to oversee efforts to cut millions in government spending.“President Trump knows reforming the federal government won’t be easy – and that’s why he needs a solid, experienced pro like Bill McGinley at DOGE,” the post said, using the acronym for the efficiency department.But the decision also comes after Warrington, in the lead-up to the Thanksgiving holiday last week, attempted what was widely seen as an effort to force the exile of top Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn over an alleged pay-to-play scheme for potential cabinet nominees.The apparent ouster attempt failed and Epshteyn has remained inside Trump’s orbit. Several Trump aides suggested Warrington might have been offered the White House counsel job as part of a detente inside the Trump legal teams, so that Warrington got what he wanted and Epshteyn retained his influence.“Bill will play a crucial role in liberating our economy from burdensome regulations, excess spending, and government waste. He will partner with the White House and the Office of Management and Budget to provide advice and guidance to end the bloated federal bureaucracy,” Trump said.The White House counsel role is not a Senate-confirmed position. Warrington would be part of a West Wing senior staff led by the White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, the co-chair of the Trump campaign with whom he has worked closely. More

  • in

    Commonly used defense tactic strongly correlates with acceptance of rape myths – study

    A new study, released amid controversy over allegations of sexual misconduct against several nominees for Donald Trump’s cabinet, reveals a positive correlation between people accused of wrongdoing who use Darvo (“deny, attack, reverse victim and offender”) defense tactics and sexual harassment perpetration and acceptance of rape myths.“These findings suggest Darvo isn’t just a response,” said Dr Sarah Harsey, assistant professor of psychology at the Oregon State University-Cascades and study lead author. “It reflects a broader perspective that condones victim-blaming and minimizes accountability.”Published on Wednesday in PLOS One, the study involved surveys of one group of 602 university students and another group of 325 “community members” – “regular folk”, Harsey said, found through Mechanical Turk, Amazon’s crowdsourcing service.Among students, researchers “found a positive correlation between Darvo use and both sexual harassment perpetration and acceptance of rape myths”. The community group showed “very strong correlations”.Harsey’s co-authors were Alexis Adams-Clark, a University of Oregon doctoral student, and Jennifer Freyd, professor emerit of psychology at Oregon and founder of the nonprofit Center for Institutional Courage.Freyd coined the term Darvo in the 1990s. She said the idea grew from watching “the hearings for Clarence Thomas and the response to Anita Hill”, the law professor who in 1991 said the then supreme court nominee sexually harassed her, only to see her own reputation dragged through the mud.“Clarence Thomas had a leadership role” in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Freyd said. “So it seemed to me like if there’s anyone who would have had a different response to the accusation, it was him. He would have said something like, ‘My memory is very different than yours. I’m disturbed to hear this is how you experienced things. I know these are very difficult conversations to have, and I want to understand what leads you to say this.’ But instead he and the other people who enabled him, it was a gang that attacked Anita Hill … and then I was seeing it all over.”Introducing their study, Freyd and her co-authors write that they aimed “to extend research on the connections between Darvo and sexual violence. We examined whether people who use Darvo as a means of responding to confrontations involving a range of wrongdoings also engage in behaviors and ascribe to beliefs that contribute to sexual violence.“Findings offer further confirmation of a link between Darvo and sexual violence and suggest this defensive response is part of a larger worldview that justifies participation in sexual violence and blames victims,” they added.The study is published amid new Washington scandal about sexual misconduct, not just regarding the blizzard of allegations against Donald Trump himself but also over accusations against Trump’s first pick for attorney general, Matt Gaetz; his pick for secretary of health, Robert F Kennedy Jr; and Pete Hegseth, the nominee for secretary of defense who was accused of sexual assault in 2017.On Sunday, the New Yorker reported a lawyer’s use of Darvo: insisting Hegseth “was completely innocent” and that his accuser “was the aggressor”, had “tried to blackmail him”, and “had previously brought a false rape charge against someone else, thus undermining her credibility”. The lawyer also demanded the release of investigative records on Hegseth’s accuser. The New Yorker said it asked authorities for such records, but none existed.Harsey said: “It is easy to find examples of Darvo in the context of sexual misconduct in the news nowadays. We started this project after the first Trump presidency, and now we are about to be faced with a second one. And so I think it’s relevance is pretty noticeable right now.“I hope that after reading the report, people will have words to put to things they already noticed. By naming Darvo, by knowing its associations with things like rape myth acceptance and sexual harassment perpetration … it sort of empowers people to take a step back and think, ‘Wait, this is Darvo. This is something research has looked at.’“Maybe we don’t have to take what [those using Darvo are] saying so seriously, because we know that this is a common tactic. We know that it’s connected to these other sort of undesirable constructs. Maybe we don’t have to believe and endorse these statements when we see Darvo out in the wild.’” More