These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration; The New York Times, March 7, 2025

Karen Yourish, Annie Daniel, Saurabh Datar, Isaac White and Lazaro Gamio, The New York Times; These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration

"As President Trump seeks to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives, agencies have flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid, according to a compilation of government documents.

• accessible
• activism
• activists
• advocacy
• advocate
• advocates
• affirming care
• all-inclusive
• allyship
• anti-racism
• antiracist
• assigned at birth
• assigned female at birth
• assigned male at birth
• at risk
• barrier
• barriers
• belong
• bias
• biased
• biased toward
• biases
• biases towards
• biologically female
• biologically male
• BIPOC
• Black
• breastfeed + people
• breastfeed + person
• chestfeed + people
• chestfeed + person
• clean energy
• climate crisis
• climate science
• commercial sex worker
• community diversity
• community equity
• confirmation bias
• cultural competence
• cultural differences
• cultural heritage
• cultural sensitivity
• culturally appropriate
• culturally responsive
• DEI
• DEIA
• DEIAB
• DEIJ
• disabilities
• disability
• discriminated
• discrimination
• discriminatory
• disparity
• diverse
• diverse backgrounds
• diverse communities
• diverse community
• diverse group
• diverse groups
• diversified
• diversify
• diversifying
• diversity
• enhance the diversity
• enhancing diversity
• environmental quality
• equal opportunity
• equality
• equitable
• equitableness
• equity
• ethnicity
• excluded
• exclusion
• expression
• female
• females
• feminism
• fostering inclusivity
• GBV
• gender
• gender based
• gender based violence
• gender diversity
• gender identity
• gender ideology
• gender-affirming care
• genders
• Gulf of Mexico
• hate speech
• health disparity
• health equity
• hispanic minority
• historically
• identity
• immigrants
• implicit bias
• implicit biases
• inclusion
• inclusive
• inclusive leadership
• inclusiveness
• inclusivity
• increase diversity
• increase the diversity
• indigenous community
• inequalities
• inequality
• inequitable
• inequities
• inequity
• injustice
• institutional
• intersectional
• intersectionality
• key groups
• key people
• key populations
• Latinx
• LGBT
• LGBTQ
• marginalize
• marginalized
• men who have sex with men
• mental health
• minorities
• minority
• most risk
• MSM
• multicultural
• Mx
• Native American
• non-binary
• nonbinary
• oppression
• oppressive
• orientation
• people + uterus
• people-centered care
• person-centered
• person-centered care
• polarization
• political
• pollution
• pregnant people
• pregnant person
• pregnant persons
• prejudice
• privilege
• privileges
• promote diversity
• promoting diversity
• pronoun
• pronouns
• prostitute
• race
• race and ethnicity
• racial
• racial diversity
• racial identity
• racial inequality
• racial justice
• racially
• racism
• segregation
• sense of belonging
• sex
• sexual preferences
• sexuality
• social justice
• sociocultural
• socioeconomic
• status
• stereotype
• stereotypes
• systemic
• systemically
• they/them
• trans
• transgender
• transsexual
• trauma
• traumatic
• tribal
• unconscious bias
• underappreciated
• underprivileged
• underrepresentation
• underrepresented
• underserved
• undervalued
• victim
• victims
• vulnerable populations
• women
• women and underrepresented

Notes: Some terms listed with a plus sign represent combinations of words that, when used together, acknowledge transgender people, which is not in keeping with the current federal government’s position that there are only two, immutable sexes. Any term collected above was included on at least one agency’s list, which does not necessarily imply that other agencies are also discouraged from using it.

The above terms appeared in government memos, in official and unofficial agency guidance and in other documents viewed by The New York Times. Some ordered the removal of these words from public-facing websites, or ordered the elimination of other materials (including school curricula) in which they might be included."

Enola Gay Aircraft—And Other Historic Items—Inaccurately Targeted Under Pentagon’s Anti-DEI Purge; Forbes, March 7, 2025

Conor Murray, Forbes; Enola Gay Aircraft—And Other Historic Items—Inaccurately Targeted Under Pentagon’s Anti-DEI Purge
"References to the Enola Gay aircraft that dropped an atomic bomb on Japan during World War II have been flagged for removal in Pentagon documents as the Department of Defense purges references related to diversity, equity and inclusion—in this case, presumably because of the word “gay.”"

ABA’s Diversity Requirement Suspension Not Enough For Pam Bondi; Above The Law, March 6, 2025

 Chris Williams, Above The Law; ABA’s Diversity Requirement Suspension Not Enough For Pam Bondi

"My money is on this being enough for the ABA to give up the pretense of still thinking about diversity and dropping the requirement. That said, it would be nice to see who the Trump administration would vest with accreditation authority should the ABA hold to its diversity guns. They’ve already tapped the WWE for their education expertise, maybe they’ll move on to some other conservative platform — Joe Rogan, perhaps? You might not even have to bother with law school with him in charge; just go on the podcast and hobnob about how great of a writer Scalia was and you’ll be greenlit to practice if the episode ratings are high enough! If Big Balls can get a coveted position in government with little to no real work experience, why can’t you go transactional after sharing some SCOTUS trivia on radio?

Playing the long game, the consequences of getting DEI out of law school will ruffle a few feathers. As much as the media likes to spin Dontravious and Jamal as proof that law schools are full of DEI, the actual culprits are Donna and Jessica. Just look at the numbers; it’s hard to talk about law school diversity without mentioning that women made up ~56% of the entering student body in 2024, which trends with them being the majority for the last few years now. The initial lawsuit phases will target law schools for having too many Black students, but the suits alleging sex discrimination for admitting too many women will be soon to follow.

See you in a couple of days when the ABA finally caves in."

AI 'hallucinations' in court papers spell trouble for lawyers; Reuters, February 18, 2025

Sara Merken, Reuters ; AI 'hallucinations' in court papers spell trouble for lawyers

"U.S. personal injury law firm Morgan & Morgan sent an urgent email this month to its more than 1,000 lawyers: Artificial intelligence can invent fake case law, and using made-up information in a court filing could get you fired.

A federal judge in Wyoming had just threatened to sanction two lawyers at the firm who included fictitious case citations in a lawsuit against Walmart. One of the lawyers admitted in court filings last week that he used an AI program that "hallucinated" the cases and apologized for what he called an inadvertent mistake."

Demonstrators hold silent protests at 17 North Dakota libraries to oppose bill removing content; North Dakota Monitor, March 3, 2025

MICHAEL ACHTERLING, North Dakota Monitor ; Demonstrators hold silent protests at 17 North Dakota libraries to oppose bill removing content

"About 1,000 silent protesters read from their books in front of North Dakota libraries Saturday to protest a bill that would force the removal of sexually explicit and obscene content from school and public libraries.

Senate Bill 2307, sponsored by Sen. Keith Boehm, R-Mandan, would force the removal of that content from public areas of the library to areas “not easily accessible” to minors. The bill passed the Senate in February on a 27-20 vote and will now be considered by the House of Representatives. 

Right to Read ND, an organization opposing library censorship, led the reading protests at 17 libraries across the state with the largest drawing an estimated 275 people at the Bismarck Veterans Memorial Public Library."

Trump, Zelenskyy and the war on truth; Index on Censorship, February 24, 2025

Sarah Dawood , Index on Censorship; Trump, Zelenskyy and the war on truth

"The news this week has been dominated by the growing feud between Donald Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which has culminated in possibly irreparable relations between the presidents.

What started with a meeting between Trump and Vladimir Putin on the war in Ukraine (from which Zelenskyy was excluded) ended in a stream of disinformation coming from the leader of the world’s largest economy. Trump made several spurious claims chiming with those regularly churned out by Putin’s propaganda machine.

Among these were that Zelenskyy is a “dictator without elections”, that Ukraine is to blame for Russia’s 2022 invasion, and that Zelenskyy’s approval rating in Ukraine has plummeted to 4%, all of which closely mirror the Kremlin’s narrative. In response, Zelenskyy said that the US president is “trapped” within a Russian “disinformation bubble”.

Trump’s comments have been debunked by many world leaders, including Keir Starmer, who immediately came out in support of Zelenskyy as a democratically elected leader, and asserted that it is normal for presidential elections to be suspended during wartime (as happened in the UK during World War Two).

This exchange indicates a drastic reshaping in the geopolitical relationship between the USA and Russia, and indeed the USA and its key allies – but it also indicates a worrying affront to access to truthful information, the normalisation of false realities, and an acceptance of the suppression of free speech.

In what is often deemed Putin’s “war on truth”, the autocratic leader’s regime is notorious for crackdowns on journalism and free information. As well as blocking access to almost all social media websites and international news sites in Russia, his government has banned independent news outlets, with media now under government control. In doing so, he has been able to control the narrative of the war for his own citizens.

This is not to say that Ukraine itself has been a bastion of free expression. As reported by Amnesty International, free speech restrictions in the country have increased since 2022, with 2,000 cases of individuals being charged, prosecuted or investigated for crimes such as “justifying Russian aggression against Ukraine”, including those who class themselves as pacifists.

But what Trump’s words do signal is a terrifying new world order where intentional mistruths are prioritised over fair, free and accurate information, not only by dictators, but by leaders who are meant to be upholding the principles of democracy."

The ABA rejects efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession; American Bar Association (ABA), March 3, 2025

American Bar Association (ABA) ; The ABA rejects efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession

"Three weeks ago, the American Bar Association spoke to you about values that guide us. We called upon every lawyer to insist that the government adhere to four major principles of law that have guided our country for over 200 years: Defending Judges and Courts, Acknowledging the Role of the Courts, Adhering to the Rule of Law, and Respecting the Separation of Powers and the three co-equal branches of government with distinct duties and responsibilities. These principles have been bedrocks of American democracy. The ABA does not shrink from standing in support of each of them.

Since that time, government actions evidence a clear and disconcerting pattern. If a court issues a decision this administration does not agree with, the judge is targeted. If a lawyer represents parties in a dispute with the administration, or if a lawyer represents parties the administration does not like, lawyers are targeted. We issued statements standing up for these four key principles, and a government official targeted us by instructing some of its lawyers not to attend ABA meetings or participate as speakers. These actions highlight escalating governmental efforts to interfere with fair and impartial courts, the right to counsel and due process, and the freedoms of speech and association in our country.

Consider the facts about our courts:

High-ranking government officials (appointed and elected) have made repeated calls for the impeachment of judges who issue opinions with which the government does not agree. There have been calls to impeach “corrupt judges” with no effort to produce evidence of the so called “corruption.” These have been directed only at judges who have ruled against the government position.

There have now been statements by officials criticizing judges for not following the will of the people. Judges swear oaths to follow the law, not public opinion polling or political chatter or what someone contends is the will of the people. The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in his 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, “[w]ithin the past year we have also seen the need for state and federal bar associations to come to the defense of a federal district judge whose decisions in a high-profile case prompted an elected official to call for her impeachment. Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.”

We may disagree with interpretation of case law, but it is unacceptable to personally target judges just because we disagree with their ruling. We cannot have a judicial system where the government seeks to remove judges simply because they do not rule as the government desires. Considering the increasing physical threats to judges, these are clearly efforts to intimidate judges and our courts.

The courts are a co-equal branch of our government, and they must be treated that way. We call upon the government and our elected officials to cease making these statements. Government officials know they can appeal decisions they do not like. That is the appropriate way to disagree with a decision of a court.

Despite these efforts to intimidate, our courts are doing their job of reviewing disputes and applying the law. The ABA will defend our courts because we support the rule of law. We encourage every lawyer to do the same and demand these attacks on our judiciary stop immediately.

The efforts to intimidate have now expanded to include the legal profession. Consider the facts:

An executive order has targeted legal and medical organizations because of their DEI advocacy. Just a few days ago, a high-ranking government official indicated that law firms that represent parties against the government should be identified even though this information is already public.

Justice Department lawyers and assistant U.S. attorneys have been the subject of personal attacks, intimidation, firings and demotions for simply fulfilling their professional responsibilities. It is especially disturbing because the government has espoused publicly that it will not weaponize or politicize the Justice Department. The actions against Department of Justice employees belie these assertions.

Now the government has decided to punish a prominent Washington, D.C., law firm because it represents a party that the administration does not like. There are also reports that actions may be taken against more law firms. Clients have the right to have access to their lawyer without interference by the government. Lawyers must be free to represent clients and perform their ethical duty without fear of retribution. These government actions deny clients access to justice and betray our fundamental values.

We support the rights of people to advance their interests in courts of law when they have been wronged. We reject the notion that the government can punish lawyers who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways. We cannot accept government actions that seek to tip the scales of justice in this manner.

We speak today on behalf of the legal profession and its members who seek to live by the oath each took upon admission to the bar. This is not something we do lightly nor is it the first time we have spoken in opposition to actions against an administration, regardless of political party.  We sued or opposed policy proposals of the last few administrations when they failed to adhere to the rule of law or interfered with access to justice, and we are doing the same with the current administration. We are nonpartisan. We stand for the rule of law. We stand for the vital role of our courts and the essential job that lawyers do every day throughout our country. We have stood on this ground for many years.

We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not. Words and actions matter. And the intimidating words and actions we have heard must end. They are designed to cow our country’s judges, our country’s courts and our legal profession. Consistent with the chief justice’s report, these efforts cannot be sanctioned or normalized.

There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation. We acknowledge that there are risks to standing up and addressing these important issues. But if the ABA and lawyers do not speak, who will speak for the organized bar? Who will speak for the judiciary? Who will protect our system of justice? If we don’t speak now, when will we speak?

The American Bar Association has chosen to stand and speak. Now is the time for all of us to speak with one voice. We invite you to stand with us.

– William R. Bay, president of the American Bar Association"

How criticism of Zelensky's clothing made it to the Oval Office; BBC, March 1, 2025

Mike Wendling, BBC; How criticism of Zelensky's clothing made it to the Oval Office

"When the meeting was opened up to questions from reporters, one came from Brian Glenn, chief White House correspondent for conservative cable network Real America's Voice.

"Why don't you wear a suit?" Glenn asked. "You're at the highest level in this country's office, and you refuse to wear a suit.

"Do you own a suit?" he continued. "A lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting the dignity of this office."

The aggressive questioning marked the moment when the Ukrainian president – who until then seemed to be having a diplomatic, even friendly, conversation with Trump – first appeared tired and irritated.

"I will wear costume after this war will finish," Zelensky replied. (The word "suit" can be translated into Ukrainian as "kostyum".)"