THE NEWS

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The anti-free speech movement in the United States was largely an outgrowth of higher education where viewpoint intolerance has taken hold of many schools. Indeed, intolerance and orthodoxy are often defended on the left in the name of tolerance and pluralism. Harvard Professor Timothy McCarthy is one of those voices demanding the removal of faculty with opposing views in the name of tolerance. He recently told New York University’s Washington Square News that any faculty who do not support “gender-affirming care” should be stripped of their academic titles and fired.

Many academics and citizens oppose “gender-affirming” policies on religious or other grounds. Some believe that school-enforced policies inhibit debate over gender dysphoria and the basis for various treatments and protections on both sides. McCarthy believes that no such debate should be allowed among faculty, declaring that “there’s a particular place in hell for academics who use their academic expertise and power to distort and do violence to people in the world.” He was targeting two professors at NYU who are affiliated with groups critical of surgical and chemical interventions for gender dysphoria.

Professor McCarthy offered the usual nod to free speech and academic freedom before eviscerating both in his comments. He admitted that “a level of suspicion and inquiry into medical practices is healthy,” but then dismissed such views as harmful and mere efforts to “poison the waters.”

There was a time when such intolerance was directed against the left and groups ranging from feminists to those in the LGBT community. Now, it has become a badge of honor, the expected bona fides that show the correctness and firmness of one’s views.

The irony is crushing. Harvard’s Kennedy School website states that McCarthy “was the first openly gay faculty member” at the public policy school “and still teaches the school’s only course on LGBTQ matters.” When I first went into teaching, I had friends who still remained in the closet out of fear that their sexual orientation would undermine their chances for tenure or advancement. Likewise, far-left academics associated with the critical legal studies (CLS) movement were viewed as “poisoning the waters” of higher education and rightfully blocked from teaching.

The left has now adopted the same intolerance and orthodoxy once used against it. Indeed, it has been far more successful in purging the faculty ranks of conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters. As we have previously discussed, Harvard is particularly notorious for this purging of both its faculty and student body.

This year, Harvard again found itself dead last among 251 universities and colleges in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) annual ranking.

The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”

Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”

According to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).

So, Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative” rather than 35 percent nationally.

According to the last student survey, only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative.

Notably, despite Harvard’s maintenance of an overwhelmingly liberal faculty and student body, even liberal students feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.

Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats.

Professor McCarthy appears right at home in his public call for a further purging of faculty ranks.

This is an area that has deeply divided the country, as was evident in the last election. Higher education should play a critical role in that debate by allowing faculty and students to engage with each other in civil and substantive debate. Instead of spending so much time and effort trying to silence those with opposing views, the left could instead focus on refuting these claims. Instead, it is replicating that same pattern of cancellations, deplatformings and firings that marked the last decade. It is the same approach used against academics who questioned aspects of COVID policies including mask efficacy doubts, natural immunity theories, opposition to the closing of schools, opposition to the six-foot rule, and the lab theory on the virus’s origin. They were also removed from faculties and associations. Yet, many of these views have since been vindicated.

What was lost was not just free speech and academic freedom, but a rigorous debate that might have helped us avoid some of the costs of unsupported COVID policies. For example, some of our closest allies listened to skeptics on the need to close schools and opted to keep young children in school. They were able to avoid the massive educational and psychological costs that we incurred in this country. Much like Professor McCarthy, these skeptics were accused of “poisoning the waters” and spreading harmful ideas or disinformation.

There is no difference between the intolerance of figures like Professor McCarthy from those who once sought the same measures against liberals, homosexuals, or feminists. Now firmly in control of higher education, many on the left are using their power to win public debate through retribution, coercion, and attrition. In the process, they are destroying the very essense of higher education for not just our students but ourselves.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Following Donald Trump’s imposition of 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, as well as retaliatory tariffs from Canada, trade across North America’s borders has suddenly become much more expensive.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, shows how much different U.S. states’ trade is impacted by these tariffs, by visualizing each state’s combined share of imports from Mexico and Canada in 2024.

The visualization uses data from the U.S. International Trade Administration.

Canada and Mexican Trade Partners

Canada and Mexico made up 28% of U.S. goods imports overall in 2024, but some states have a much higher or lower share of their imports coming from the country’s northern and southern neighbors.

In the table below is the data for each U.S. state’s combined share of imports from Canada and Mexico, which has the state of Montana leading the pack at 93%.

State	Combined share of imports from Canada and Mexico (2024)
Montana	93%
Maine	72%
North Dakota	71%
Vermont	71%
Michigan	69%
Wyoming	57%
Oklahoma	56%
Texas	49%
Iowa	48%
West Virginia	45%
South Dakota	44%
Minnesota	44%
Utah	43%
Connecticut	41%
Colorado	38%
Illinois	38%
Nebraska	38%
Missouri	37%
Massachusetts	37%
Ohio	35%
New Mexico	34%
Arizona	34%
Wisconsin	31%
Arkansas	31%
Washington, DC	31%
Rhode Island	30%
Alaska	29%
Alabama	28%
New Hampshire	25%
Louisiana	25%
Kansas	24%
Delaware	21%
Mississippi	21%
Washington	20%
Idaho	20%
North Carolina	19%
Maryland	18%
Georgia	17%
Virginia	17%
Tennessee	17%
Kentucky	17%
Oregon	17%
Pennsylvania	16%
California	16%
Nevada	16%
Indiana	16%
South Carolina	16%
New York	15%
Florida	14%
New Jersey	11%
Hawaii	6%

Following Montana in terms of import dependence on Canada and Mexico are Maine (72%), Vermont (71%), and North Dakota (71%), all states which share their northern border with Canada.

Montana’s high import dependence is almost entirely on Canada, which alone makes up 92% of the state’s imports. The Treasure State’s shared border with the province of Alberta and its three oil refineries makes it a perfect importer for Canadian crude oil. 76% of Montana’s imports from Canada were oil and gas.

Looking at southern states dependent on Canadian and Mexican trade, Texas (49%) and Oklahoma (56%) stand out. Despite being much closer to the southern border, Oklahoma is a similar case to Montana, with 50% of the state’s imports coming only from Canada and 79% of those imports being oil and gas.

Texas (the second-largest state economy in the U.S.) is instead much more dependent on imports from Mexico, which make up 40% of the state’s imports overall. The top goods Texas imported from Mexico in 2024 were motor vehicles and their parts at 23%, followed by computer equipment at 22%.

To learn more about the effects of Trump’s tariffs on his North American neighbors, check out this graphic on the areas in Canada that have the highest exposure to U.S. tariffs.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Elon Musk must give records to attorneys general that sued them, in addition to answering written questions, a federal judge ruled on March 12.

The U.S. government must give New Mexico’s attorney general and 12 other state prosecutors who sued it numerous documents, including those that DOGE and Musk created or edited regarding the termination of federal workers, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled.

Chutkan largely granted discovery requests from the attorneys general, who say that the actions by Musk as DOGE’s public face are unconstitutional in part because he was not confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

After the judge in February turned down their bid to block DOGE from accessing government data, the attorneys general said Chutkan should grant expedited discovery so they could confirm that Musk and DOGE “are directing actions within federal agencies that have profoundly harmed the States and will continue to harm them” as they prepare a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Government lawyers opposed the motion. “The material the States seek is not relevant to their claims; nor should the Court require such discovery on an expedited timeframe before it has even had a chance to adjudicate the Government’s motion to dismiss,” the lawyers said.

Chutkan said she was granting expedited discovery because it was “reasonable and necessary to evaluate Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.”

She turned aside government arguments that expediting discovery to support the forthcoming injunction motion was not a sufficient reason to speed up discovery.

“Courts in this jurisdiction … have consistently found that preliminary injunction proceedings are exactly the kind of circumstance warranting expedited discovery,” Chutkan said.

The case centers on DOGE’s authority or purported lack thereof, and whether it has been working with or directing agencies to cut personnel and agreements.

In one filing in the case, a White House official said that Musk, a special adviser to President Donald Trump, was not a DOGE employee and did not have the authority to make decisions. Trump later said that Musk was in charge of DOGE, while former consultant Amy Gleason was named as its acting administrator.

DOGE has been assisting various agencies that have terminated tens of thousands of workers since Trump was sworn in on Jan. 20, according to Trump, Musk, and agency officials.

Under the new order, which does not apply to Trump, the government must hand over documents on obtaining access to and making changes to federal databases, lists, and summaries regarding the cancellation of federal agreements, as well as documents created or edited in relation to the termination of federal workers.

The deadline for discovery is 21 days.

DOGE must also identify every individual who has served as the administrator of DOGE, or the functional head of DOGE since Trump took office; every person who is part of DOGE; and all agencies for which DOGE or Musk canceled or directed the cancellation of grants and contracts or the termination of employees, the judge ruled.

Chutkan denied the plaintiffs’ request for two depositions, which the attorneys general said would be planned based on the government’s discovery production.

“[E]ven though Plaintiffs agree not to seek to depose President Trump or Musk, the court recognizes that depositions impose a heavier burden than written discovery,” the judge said. “If Defendants fail to adequately respond to Plaintiffs’ written discovery, Plaintiffs may renew their requests for depositions.”

This is the second order this week requiring DOGE to produce records. A different federal judge on March 10 ordered DOGE to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request, finding that it has been acting independently from the president.

A third U.S. judge in February ordered a DOGE worker to sit for a deposition in a separate case that also seeks to block DOGE from accessing some government systems.