In documents obtained by The New York Times, Trump administration seems to be veering off terms used for social justice.
The New York Times published a report on March 7 about words sent to the chopping block by the Trump administration. This list of more than 200 words do not face any institutional ban as per the documents obtained by the paper, but will now on see limited use in official communication by the federal agencies.
It is not unusual for presidential administrations to put forward guidelines on the usage of terms, as per The New York Times, but the particular words that the Trump administration is hindering the use of give a glimpse into its policies, which are aimed at containing the public dialogue around inclusivity rather than expanding it. The move feels draconian as far as free speech and public expression is concerned ('expression' is also on the scanner according to the memo), but it syncs well with what the administration has been preaching (and implementing) since Trump took office.
Knowing the ideological ground upon which Donald Trump was elected — with its hardline, right wing rhetoric on gender and immigration — it is not a surprise that a chunk of these words focus on diversity in terms of race, and gender/sexual orientation.
These words and phrases include 'sexual preferences', 'biologically female', 'chestfeeding + people', 'assigned female at birth', among the many other terms that have been brought up in the context of transgender folks. These are often used to heighten sensitivity around gender variation, and challenge binary gender roles that only recognise cis women and cis men as legitimate.
Less than 1 per cent of the US population identifies as transgender, but the descriptors that are commonly used by the community when referring to the issues around themselves or how they identify have formed a bulk of what the administration is trying to revoke.
Terms that pertain to the queer community as a whole have been brought under the scanner as well, with terms like 'sexual preferences' and 'LGBT/LGBTQ' finding their way on to the list.
The list is presumably targeting words that are considered “woke”— a term that is commonly associated with progressive causes and social safety programs, like DEI.
Trump라이브 바카라 recent crackdown on DEI — an organisational framework that focuses on Diversity, Equality and Inclusivity related initiatives — is one of the main characteristics of his 50-day old presidency. While civil rights groups have sued the Trump administration — arguing that its radical stance against DEI is endangering Black folks as well as transgender people, and it is a classic case of an “overreach” — the administration is likely to be tenacious in imposing restrictions on immigration and diversity initiatives.
More words that are being considered suspicious by the administration are 'equal opportunity', 'enhancing the diversity', 'marginalized', 'immigrants', 'BIPOC' and 'racial justice'.
What is noticeable is that in addition to words with more pronounced and specific charge around social justice, under scrutiny are also words that seem fairly benign and generic. One of them is the word 'belong', which can have a fairly diverse (also a word on the list) set of uses. Without context, even words like 'key groups', 'inclusion', 'confirmation bias', 'barrier', 'at-risk' have purposes beyond the rhetoric that challenges the hardline stances of the current administration. But their incorporation in the list suggests an exacting attitude towards anything that lurks within the vicinity of “wokeness”, and can possibly align itself to the cause of the left.
Words like 'pollution', 'climate crisis' and 'climate science' also made it to the list, painting a pessimistic picture for the United States’ future stance in curbing carbon emissions. In the past, the Trump administration had pulled out of the Paris accord that aimed to bring down the temperature of the earth by managing the use of non-renewable resources and committing towards sustainable practices.
From the documents obtained by The New York Times, it is evident that the caution against these outlined terms have already begun seeping into official procedures. The sentences that contain these words have been removed from official documents, effectively diluting the specificity of what was being said.