Leaked Interior Department database reveals US plans to revise historical information

This is total white supremacy Christian nationalism and an attempt to both roll back all civil rights of minorities and project a fake white Christians were the only good people in the country mentality. Propaganda in other words to support fragile white men’s egos and prop up declining church attendance. This is driven by people who don’t want to share the country equally with others but want everything for their group only. They want to remove an entire group of people from society, the LGBTQ+ community and go back to the pre1960s civil rights for nonwhites. Hugs

An internal government database first reported, by the Washington Post and posted on two public on Monday revealed the scope of the Trump administration’s effort to revise or remove information on African-American history, LGBT rights, climate change and other topics at hundreds of national park ⁠sites.

“The narrative being advanced is false and these draft, deliberative internal documents are not a representation of final action taken by the department,” an Interior Department spokesperson said. The National Park Service is part of the Interior Department.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/leaked-interior-department-database-reveals-us-plans-revise-historical-2026-03-03/?taid=69a67fff36cfd000018dfcee&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

By Kanishka Singh

March 2, 20269:36 PM ESTUpdated 23 hours ago

United States Department of the Interior logo and U.S. flag are seen in this illustration taken April 23, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

The U.S. Interior Department said a database revealing how President Donald Trump’s administration planned to revise information on key phases of American history at national park sites was deliberative and the employees ‌who released it “will be held accountable.”

An internal government database first reported, by the Washington Post and posted on two public on Monday revealed the scope of the Trump administration’s effort to revise or remove information on African-American history, LGBT rights, climate change and other topics at hundreds of national park ⁠sites.

“The narrative being advanced is false and these draft, deliberative internal documents are not a representation of final action taken by the department,” an Interior Department spokesperson said. The National Park Service is part of the Interior Department.

Trump has targeted cultural and historical institutions – from museums to monuments to national parks – to remove what he calls “anti-American” ideology.

His declarations and executive orders have led to the dismantling of exhibits on slavery, the restoration of Confederate statues and other ‌moves ⁠that civil rights advocates say could reverse decades of progress.

The Interior Department spokesperson alleged the internal working documents were edited in a misrepresenting way before being released. The spokesperson also labeled the release as inappropriate and illegal, without specifying the law it ⁠allegedly violated.

“Employees who altered internal records and leaked in an effort to hurt the Trump administration will be held accountable,” the spokesperson added.

The Trump administration has sought to stifle internal dissent within ⁠government agencies and taken action against employees who have criticized its policies.

Last year, some employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency were put on leave ⁠after they signed an open letter against the agency’s leadership, while some Environmental Protection Agency employees were fired after they signed a letter critical of the government’s actions.

Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Thomas Derpinghaus

Oregon man sentenced after violent hate crime against gay man

Again Christian fundamentlist rehtoric and constant attacks on LGBTQ+ people by religious leaders lead to the gullible doing actions like this. He knew demons would be there and he needed to be the hero and slay the evil man living in a way that made his god un happy. Every church leader who preaches hate against other communities should be held responsible for the actions of those who listen to their ridiculous, hateful claims and then act on them. Hugs

McGee told detectives they met on Grindr, and that he went to his apartment because he knew “demons would be there,” according to court documents. He also told detectives he intended to “slay” and “get rid of” the victim.

Investigators discovered that McGee planned the attack ahead of time, and including searching the internet for violently homophobic material, purchasing the weapon and searching for how to get away with murder, as well as how to dispose of a body.

https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/oregon-man-sentenced-after-violent-hate-crime-against-gay-man/

An Oregon man was sentenced on Tuesday after he assaulted a man in 2021 due to his sexual orientation.

Daniel McGee, 26, was sentenced to just over 12 years in prison, along with five years of supervised release.

“The right to live safely in one’s community is a fundamental civil right. The District of Oregon remains committed to combating hate crimes and protecting that right for all,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon Scott E. Bradford. “While no conviction can undo the harm caused, we hope this sentence will bring some measure of justice to the victim and our community.”

“Hate crimes impact not just individuals, but entire communities,” added FBI Portland Special Agent in Charge Matt Torres. “The FBI works together with our partners to prevent hate crimes from impacting our communities, and every attack on someone because of who and what they are deserves to be acted on by the full extent of the law.”

McGee made national news in 2021 when he was charged with attacking a man he met on Grindr, a dating app for gay men.

In court documents, prosecutors said he used the screen name “str8 curious” and arranged to meet the man at his apartment. He said he had just turned 18 and wasn’t ready to kiss yet, but wanted to make sure they would be alone.

But when McGee arrived at the apartment, he attacked the man. He struck the victim over the head repeatedly using a small wooden club known as a tire thumper. Multiple callers told emergency dispatchers they could hear someone screaming for help.

When police arrived, they found both men inside the victim’s apartment. The victim had life-threatening injuries, including multiple lacerations to the sides and back of his head, and a large portion of his scalp was missing.

McGee told detectives they met on Grindr, and that he went to his apartment because he knew “demons would be there,” according to court documents. He also told detectives he intended to “slay” and “get rid of” the victim.

Investigators discovered that McGee planned the attack ahead of time, and including searching the internet for violently homophobic material, purchasing the weapon and searching for how to get away with murder, as well as how to dispose of a body.

In November 2021, McGee was charged with a federal hate crime involving an attempt to kill. He pleaded guilty in federal court in Nov. 2025.

The Conservative Proposal To Take Money from Poor Single Moms and Give It to Married Couples

There is a video at the site linked. How ever as you read through this remember that this is the group that wrote project 2025 and the main author of that Christian nationalist screed is Russell Vought who has a powerful position in the tRump administration. This is entirely about pushing a fundamentalist Christian lifestyle and worldview on the US public with heavy emphasis on quiverful which ishave as many children as possible for Christian families most of whom in that movement lived impoverished on one income. The idea is more kids butts in church pews now leads to more adult butts in those pews increasing tithes and money in the collection plates. Church attendance has decreased steadily and this is designed to increase it again. Plus it removes rights for women and LGBTQ+ families. The parents get the money only if women / the mothers marry young, forgo an advanced education, stay out of the work place, and have child after child after child like a breeding stock farm animal. It is only for the “right or correct types of families” and harms those who are not the “right” kinds of families. Plus it is totally racist with the poor people being cut out of the funds. The fact is minorities make on average far less than white families due to inherent racism and CRT, which is a real thing. Hugs

https://www.throughline.news/p/the-conservative-proposal-to-take

The Heritage Foundation has an idea: Take from the poor and give to the rich

Jill Filipovic

Feb 25, 2026

Last week, I wrote about the Heritage Foundation’s Saving America by Saving the American Family: A Plan for the Next 250 Years. The plan is, essentially, to make women drop out of school, marry young, have tons of babies, rely financially on their husbands, be unable to divorce, and wind up in the poor house if they don’t follow these rules. But I wanted to zero in specifically on the policy section of the piece, which comes at the very end and which I haven’t seen get the coverage it deserves. Because what the Heritage Foundation is proposing is a massive cash transfer from poor single mothers to better-off married couples. This really is the plan: Take from the poor to give to the “right” kind of families. Make poor mothers work, and pay better-off ones to stay home. Further impoverish single mothers to force them to marry.

The Heritage Foundation wants to eventually end cash welfare as we know it (“Credits designed specifically to benefit poor single mothers may be well intended, but they have proven to incentivize single motherhood in poor communities,” Heritage laments). They don’t propose totally doing away with welfare benefits here, I suspect because they realize that would be a nonstarter. But they do propose taking resources that currently mostly benefit poorer families and redirecting them to wealthier ones, so long as those wealthier families have married parents. The Heritage proposal would only give its proposed benefits to married couples (policies should “privilege marriage as directly and explicitly as possible,” Heritage writes, emphasis theirs). It would only give benefits to married couples in which one partner works and makes above a certain income. And it would incentivize women dropping out of the workforce… unless they’re poor or single.

Here are the specifics.

Child tax credits only for married couples who are the child’s biological parents, who are working, and who make at least $30,500. The Heritage proposal would get rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit, because that credit gives more money to struggling single parents than better-off married ones, as well as the Child Tax Credit, and replace them with what they call a Family and Marriage (FAM) tax credit of $4,418 per child per year for four years. But this credit would phase in for families once they’re earning $30,500 per year — in other words, poor families wouldn’t qualify. It would only go to married parents — single parents wouldn’t qualify. It would only go to biological parents — step parents wouldn’t qualify. A person could be working full-time, but even if they’re earning above minimum wage, they may not qualify for this tax credit.

Bonuses for larger families — but only for married couples, only for biological parents, and not for the poor. Additionally, Heritage proposes a 25% per-child bonus to their FAM tax credit for third children and beyond. But, again, poor families are out of luck, as only couples with at least one working spouse qualify, and that spouse has to make at least $30,500.

More money for higher earners, none for the lowest. The FAM credit phases in at $30,500, and goes up from there relative to income. That’s right: This is government family support that gives more money to families that already have more money. And it gives the most money to families that are the most stable: Those with two married parents who make more than six figures. The credit doesn’t begin to scale down until a family makes $110,000, and even then, the wind-down is small (beginning at just 5%). Why set up a program that gives people more money as they make more money? Because “the FAM credit’s phase-in would incentivize work.” All of this means that a married couple with three children making $400,000 a year would get $14,000 additional dollars from the US taxpayer — while a single mom making $20,000 a year would get nada.

No help after a child’s fourth birthday. As it stands, parents can claim the Child Tax Credit until a child’s 17th birthday. The Heritage plan cuts parents off when their kid turns four. They claim that these early years are when parents need the most help. But children don’t stop needing food and a roof over their heads once they’re kindergarten age. The Heritage Foundation is clear that the purpose of this plan isn’t to support children, but to incentivize parents to have more of them: “The FAM credit is designed specifically for families with newborns or young children. Lawmakers interested in family policy may be inclined simply to expand the CTC. However, this approach would be inefficient as a family formation incentive. Only a small fraction of the benefit would go toward new parents, while most of it would go to families that are already formed.” They continue: “many other family benefits, such as the CTC, are backloaded to later in life when many parents are on more solid financial footing and may be past their prime child-bearing years.” Emphasis mine, because this is truly stunning: The Heritage Foundation only wants to give parents tax credits for their (expensive) children if those parents (mothers) are in their “prime child-bearing years” and might make more babies. Eggs too old? No child tax credits for you.

Pay women to stay home. The Heritage Foundation could have proposed a generous paid leave program, which would allow parents of newborns to stay home and care for them in that crucial first year. But their aim is not to make sure that young children receive the best possible care. Their aim seems to be to get women out of the workforce. And so they’ve instead offered a $2,000 per-child credit for one parent (almost always the mother) to stay home and care full-time for her child — but again, this only applies to married couples where one spouse (almost always the husband) is working and makes more than $30,500 per year. You’re a single mom who wants to stay home with your child? Tough luck, get to work. You’re a low-income married parent who wants to stay home with your child? Tough luck, get to work. If the concern really were for children — if the view really was that young children are best off being cared for at home by a parent — then this policy would apply to all parents of young children. But that’s not the concern. The concern is that women aren’t living their lives in the way Heritage deems acceptable.

Fund this whole scheme by getting rid of Head Start. Head Start is an incredible program that has had vast positive impacts, increasing high school and college graduation rates, adult incomes, health outcomes, and overall wellbeing. Studies have found it even decreases child abuse and neglect. This proposal would effectively end it, and use the money saved to give tax breaks to wealthy married couples with children.

Pay people to marry young. The final Heritage policy is a $2,500 deposit into a savings account for every new baby born in the US — but the only way to get the full benefit of that money as an adult is to marry well before the age of 30. That is, when an American is born, the government will deposit $2,500 into a savings account for them, which they cannot touch until they either marry or turn 30. At either marriage or age 30, they can start to withdraw from the account, but only over three years — so about a third of the original value per year. They get the full withdrawal amount each year (roughly one-third of the total account value) if, in each year, they are married but not yet 30. If they’re over 30, whether they’re married or not, they pay a tax penalty. In other words, to get the full benefit, you have to marry by 27 — below the average age of first marriage for women (28.6) and men (30.2) alike. Again, the point is not to incentivize marriage; it’s to incentivize women especially marrying as young as possible, despite early marriage being tied to higher divorce rates.

xx Jill

Subscribe to Throughline by Jill Filipovic

Hundreds of paid subscribers

Connecting the dots. Politics, culture, women’s rights, foreign affairs, law, and more.

By subscribing, you agree Substack’s Terms of Use, and acknowledge its Information Collection Notice and Privacy Policy.

A Nationwide Book Ban Bill Has Been Introduced in the House of Representatives

Again all this is about is a Christian nationalist desire to mimic Russia and remove all LGBTQ+ representation from the public view in the name of “protecting children from porn” as if just being or media representing LGBTQ+ people is pornographic and sexual. These people feel anything not straight and cis is sexualizing and abusing children simply because they do not want the LGBTQ+ people to exist. Hugs

Side note. Ron got home last night 3-2-2026 about 6 pm. I made him a supper of a salad and two hamburgers with the fixings. He was so happy. I was happy. We went to bed and snuggled which made Tupac who has snuggled me every night a bit unhappy but he pressed in from the other side. All day Ron and I have been together, unloading the car, doing laundry, Ron started on the floors in the kitchen, and we are making a pork tenderloin, potatoes, brown gravy, carrots, and greenbeans for supper. It is so good to have my husband home. I understood why he had been gone for the better part of three months but it sure is grand to have him home. I feel better, anxieties lower, and happy feeling up. Also for those worried I was not eating which I was not, I ate like a pig at a trough tonight, having a first heaping plate of everything and then going back for a second heaping plate. The end of the second one was a bit challenging to finish but I did. I offered to pick up the last bits of left overs but ron said he would do it. I think he noticed I was trying to hide that I was swaying and wobbleing when I walked due to my pain levels. Hugs

Discussion of gender is not sexualization. Making books available to students that represent the diversity of their experiences and showcase the numerous ways to be a person in the world is not sexualizing them. Such an interpretation says far more about the adults and the perspectives they’re applying to books than it does about the books or their intended audiences.

Following this week’s State of the Union Address, House Republicans worked quickly to advance legislation to ban books from public schools nationwide. House Resolution 7661 (H.R. 7661), also known as the “Stop the Sexualization of Children Act” would modify the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by prohibiting use of funds under the act “to develop, implement, facilitate, host, or promote any program or activity for, or to provide or promote literature or other materials to, children under the age of 18 that includes sexually oriented material, and for other purposes.”

The bill was introduced by House Representative Mary Miller (Republican, Illinois). 17 additional Representatives cosigned it.

H.R. 7661 is an anti-trans bill, and tucked within its provisions are those that ban books for those under 18 that “include sexually oriented material.” This is the same vague language used in numerous states across the U.S. to ban books from public schools and public libraries. This bill includes “lewd” and “lascivious” dancing as prohibited topics or themes. No such books for young readers exist, but facts don’t matter to a regime seeking total and complete control.

The bill goes on to further define “sexually oriented material” as anything broaching the topics of “gender dysphoria or transgenderism.” The latter is an intentionally harmful word used as a cudgel to harm trans people. Such a broad definition also ensures that this kind of bill could be applicable in any situation where it would benefit the banners. It isn’t a stretch to see a bill like this used to outright ban all books by or about LGBTQ+ people under the guise of it being “sexually oriented.”

Though this legislation would apply to institutions using funds from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, there’s little question that it would expand to include all public libraries, not just those in public schools. We’ve already seen this very thing play out across the country.

Katy Independent School District (TX) banned any books about “gender fluidity” among its bans of “sexually explicit materials.” Just last month, the Texas school district outside Houston banned over 140 LGBTQ+ books under the policy. Greenville Public Library (SC) has banned all books for those under 18 with “trans” themes or topics, a ban later replicated and expanded in York County Library to include “gender identity” books (also in South Carolina). Greenville’s library was sued by the state’s chapter of the ACLU on behalf of several library patrons.

These local-level policies, alongside state-level policies like Iowa’s Senate File 496 and Idaho’s House Bill 710–both still working their way through numerous lawsuits–provided the roadmap for the proposal of federal-level book ban legislation. It was only a matter of time, and the ongoing onslaught of anti-trans legislation and rhetoric that has grown exponentially under the Trump-Vance regime made this the prime moment.

Discussion of gender is not sexualization. Making books available to students that represent the diversity of their experiences and showcase the numerous ways to be a person in the world is not sexualizing them. Such an interpretation says far more about the adults and the perspectives they’re applying to books than it does about the books or their intended audiences.

You can read the full text of H.R. 7661 here, including its list of cosponsors. Right now, your best way to have your voice heard about this hateful and discriminatory bill is to call your House representatives and urge them to veto this bill at every opportunity. There are years’ worth of resources from which you can pull about where and how all of these bills are calculated and targeted, and you can pull from the numerous ongoing lawsuits challenging similar bills and policies at the local and state level. Let your lawmakers know that you’re watching them and their voting records, especially if they’re among the roster of those proposing the legislation.

These bills aren’t about removing books; books are just one of the tools. These bills are about the complete and total erasure and removal of queer people from American life.

Judges question Pam Bondi’s social media posts on Minnesota arrests

First the judges started questioning the truth of government officials and attorneys. Then the judges accused the DOJ / ICE of ignoring court rulings and orders. Now in this case Bondi’s posts clearly violate a judges orders and the constant posting on social media is designed to color or bias the public and potential jurors. The coruptin of this administration if beyoung anything we have ever seen in the US. I just read that Kash Patel has ordered the elete tatical teams around the country to rotate providing complete security and transportation. Not the regular FBI but the strategic elite teams. Hugs

“The government failed to respect Ms. Flores’s dignity and privacy, exposed her to a risk of doxxing, and generally thumbed its nose at the notion that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. The post also directly violated a court order sealing the case,” the judge wrote. “Notwithstanding, the government now seeks an accommodation from the Court that it blatantly failed to give Ms. Flores and her codefendants.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/27/pam-bondi-minnesota-arrests-00805316?_bhlid=fc73e4f71e1d20238e2ebc88c873317d213e9e99&utm_campaign=the-smile-3-3&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=www.readthesmile.com

The attorney general’s posts included names and photographs of the defendants.

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s posts made the government’s request for court-ordered discretion for its agents “eyebrow-raising, to say the least,” one judge wrote. | Allison Robbert/AP

By Josh Gerstein02/27/2026 07:06 PM EST

Two federal judges have raised concerns about Attorney General Pam Bondi’s use of social media to publicize a wave of arrests last month of people charged with interfering with federal officers during an immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota.

In an order earlier this week, Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster said Bondi’s posts on X including the names and, in many instances, photographs of the defendants shortly after their arrests “violated a court order” placing those cases under seal.

Foster leveled the criticism in connection with the prosecution of Nitzana Flores, a South Haven, Minnesota, resident accused of assaulting two Border Patrol officers during a scuffle last month in Minneapolis surrounding the arrest of another person for allegedly ramming a government vehicle.

The judge said Bondi’s posting of the names and arrest photos undercut prosecutors’ request for an order to prohibit defense attorneys from publicly disclosing personal information about immigration agents involved in the case against Flores. The requested order would also prohibit any defense counsel from sharing that information with their client.

Foster said Bondi’s social media posts made the government’s request for court-ordered discretion for its agents “eyebrow-raising, to say the least.”

“The government failed to respect Ms. Flores’s dignity and privacy, exposed her to a risk of doxxing, and generally thumbed its nose at the notion that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. The post also directly violated a court order sealing the case,” the judge wrote. “Notwithstanding, the government now seeks an accommodation from the Court that it blatantly failed to give Ms. Flores and her codefendants.”

Foster modified the government’s proposal by broadening it to cover any party, victim or witness, while narrowing it to details such as phone numbers, residential addresses, email addresses and dates of birth. The judge also declined to restrict what evidence Flores can see and declined to prohibit disclosure of identities, which would include names and photographs.

At a hearing in a separate Minneapolis case last week, another magistrate judge, Shannon Elkins, directed prosecutors to “address whether the public posting of photographs violated the Court’s sealing order.” The government missed a deadline Tuesday to respond. Elkins later agreed to extend the deadline until Monday.

Justice Department spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment, but there are signs that Bondi got the magistrates’ messages.

On Friday, Bondi was careful not to jump the gun when announcing a new, massive wave of arrests in connection with a disruptive immigration-related protest at a St. Paul church last month. The new indictment Bondi announced added 30 defendants to the nine people already charged, who include former CNN anchor Don Lemon.

“YOU CANNOT ATTACK A HOUSE OF WORSHIP,” Bondi wrote in an X post that went up within a minute of the indictment being unsealed in the court’s online docket. “If you do so, you cannot hide from us — we will find you, arrest you, and prosecute you. This Department of Justice STANDS for Christians and all Americans of faith.”

While booking photos or mugshots are public in many states, the federal government has traditionally cited privacy concerns to resist making them public in federal criminal cases. In 2012, the Obama administration instituted a nationwide Justice Department policy to refuse release of such photos, except where necessary to track down a fugitive or for investigative reasons.

That policy appears to have been abandoned after President Donald Trump returned to office last year. The Justice Department has for decades routinely publicized the names, ages and hometowns of people arrested by including that information in press releases.

See the scam and lies of bathroom bills. Who is the real threat to little girls … or little boys?

American Psychological Association Reaffirms Support For Trans Youth Care, Pushes Back Against NYT

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/american-psychological-association

A recent article from Jesse Singal in the New York Times seemed to indicate the organization might be quietly retreating from supporting trans youth care.

Erin Reed

Feb 25, 2026

B Christopher/Alamy

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Yesterday, anti-transgender activist and columnist Jesse Singal published a piece claiming there were “cracks in the wall” around gender-affirming care (which you can find fully fact-checked here). To make that case, he relied heavily on a statement from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons that bypassed the organization’s normal scientific review process and was advanced under pressure from leadership aligned with the Trump administration, including a president who is a major Republican donor. Singal also invoked the American Psychological Association, suggesting the organization was retreating from its 2024 position supporting transgender care and rejecting claims that gender identity is “caused” by external factors. But a representative for the APA tells Erin In The Morning that the organization stands firmly by its 2024 guidelines supporting transgender youth care and provided documentation indicating Singal mischaracterized its position.

“No, APA’s position has not changed,” says a representative speaking for the APA, attaching a link to their 2024 policy statement which provided broad support for gender-affirming care. “APA continues to support unobstructed access to evidence-based care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals of all ages.”

The 2024 policy statement is to date one of the most significant supportive stances of any medical organization for gender-affirming care. It states that gender-affirming medical care is medically necessary, opposes bans on gender-affirming care, declares that being transgender is not caused by autism or post-traumatic stress, establishes the organization’s support for combatting disinformation on transgender healthcare, and finds that rejection of a trans youth’s gender identity can increase their risk of suicide and harm their psychological wellbeing. The policy was passed overwhelmingly, 153-9, with each voter representing a large subset of the organization’s 157,000 members. Now, the organization says that it is not accurate to claim that there is any regression on support for transgender youth care from the organization.

The organization also disputes Singal’s portrayal of a 2025 letter written by Katherine McGuire to the Federal Trade Commission. In his piece, Singal claims the APA “cautioned that gender dysphoria diagnoses could be the result of ‘trauma-related presentations’ rather than a trans identity,” and noted that “co-occurring mental health or neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder) … may complicate or be mistaken for gender dysphoria,” framing this as evidence that the organization is retreating from its 2024 policy supporting transgender youth care. That interpretation is incorrect, according to an APA representative, who says the letter does not contradict the organization’s 2024 position and does not represent a regression in its support for evidence-based transgender care.

The FTC letter sent by APA Services was not saying that transgender identity can be caused by autism or depression. Rather, it was describing what any competent psychologist does with any patient: assess the whole person, including whether conditions like depression or anxiety are present. The letter does not say that depression or anxiety or autism cause gender dysphoria; it says that psychologists are careful about not mistaking these conditions for gender dysphoria. Notably, the letter was written in direct response to the Trump administration’s FTC, which had accused gender-affirming care providers of deceiving consumers, and McGuire was explaining that psychologists conduct thorough, individualized assessments—not that the organization’s position on care or “causes” of being transgender had changed. Had McGuire not indicated that psychologists were making these determinations, the FTC would likely then accuse the organization of not investigating its crank theories on gender dysphoria.

You can view the letter here:

American Psychological Assocation Response To Ftc Rfi Gender Affirming Care 9 26 2025 Signature (1)

323KB ∙ PDF file

Download

“The 2024 policy statement and the 2025 FTC letter are consistent. The 2024 statement reflects the organization’s policy position on access to care. The 2025 FTC letter describes what competent psychologists do in individual clinical practice: they do not make generalized claims to families but instead provide individualized, evidence-based assessment. Both documents reflect APA’s consistent commitment to evidence-based psychological care,” says the representative.

The American Psychological Association’s reaffirmation of its support for transgender youth health care is significant. The organization is among several reportedly under FTC investigation as part of a broader effort to pressure medical bodies to retreat from transgender youth care. It is also facing a coordinated pressure campaign from anti-trans activists like Jesse Singal and outlets such as The New York Times, both of which have repeatedly sought to cast doubt on established standards of care. That context makes Singal’s portrayal especially consequential. Readers were left with the impression that the APA was backtracking. According to the organization itself, that is false. What Singal presented as evidence of “cracks in the wall” was yet another attempt to manufacture doubt around the professional consensus supporting transgender youth care.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Some Clay Jones, Some Ann Telnaes

Roughs, Volume 261

Ding-dong! Roughs are here!

Clay Jones Feb 27, 2026

I have posted roughs here and there since my stroke, but I haven’t done a blog of them. I didn’t expect to be drawing that many since it’s kind of difficult to draw, but lo and behold, I’ve been drawing a lot of roughs lately. To share those, I figure the best thing to do would be to bring back the blogs of roughs.

There may be a few of these that I have already published, but I can’t remember them all, and I’m not going back through my blogs to see what I have and haven’t published.

I’ve been sitting on this one for about two weeks. I like the idea of them being in the same location, with the tell being the Washington Monument.

I don’t remember if I shared this one already, but it was drawn on February 18. The cartoon I eventually drew and published that day was the right one.

I didn’t think this was going to work, and the two people I showed it to didn’t get it, even though they had seen the movie The Jerk. (snip-MORE)

MAGA Bubble

The Claytoonz hot take of the State of the Union

Clay Jones

Did you watch the State of the Union last night? If you didn’t, no worries. I got you. And if you did not watch, no one can blame you. At an hour and 47minutes, it was the longest State of the Union address to Congress ever, even breaking the previous record, which also belonged to Donald Trump. When it comes to giving long-ass boring speeches that don’t seem like they want to end, Donald Trump is the Fidel Castro of American politicians.

To give you the gist of the speech, I’ll share what a few writers from The New York Times stated: “A tedious, tiresome performance,” “crabby rambling,” “the heat mongering continues,” and “long, exhaustive, and repetitive.” The speech probably did very little to lift Trump up from his current 36% approval rating.

Trump didn’t give a lot of details of his agenda or programs last night, so he killed time by handing out awards like it was a game show because, you know, showmanship. He handed out two Congressional Medals of Honor, one Purple Heart, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a hockey player. These are all awards that Donald Trump would love to give himself. (snip-MORE)

(Really late on this next one…)