Connect with us

News

Defending Trump may seem absurd—I spoke to a Black woman who does it every day

Published

on

Defending Trump may seem absurd—I spoke to a Black woman who does it every day

There’s no denying the Trump campaign is trying to court Black voters, and the appeal to protect “Black jobs” from immigrants seems designed to do precisely that. While support for Trump among Black voters remains low, some believe that ought to change. Janiyah Thomas, Black Media Engagement Director for the Trump campaign, joins Taya Graham of The Real News for a frank discussion about the election, the Supreme Court, the loss of affirmative action, reproductive rights, and the reality of being “Black MAGA.”

Studio Production: Cameron Granadino
Post-Production: Taya Grahama, Adam Coley


Transcript

Taya Graham:  Welcome to The Real News podcast. My name is Taya Graham, and today we’re diving headfirst into a topic that challenges our fundamental understanding of the Black community in America: The rise of Black conservative women who are literally changing the face of the Republican Party.

Now, we’ve heard a lot about Black men turning to conservatism, including a series of interviews I did at the Republican National Convention exploring why they support Trump — And just a quick fact, recent polls suggest as many as 20% of Black men are highly likely to vote for former President Trump. These are critical votes in an election that is already razor-thin.

Advertisement

But what about Black women? What happens if they cross over in significant numbers? And that’s why we’re having a frank conversation with a bold Black woman who’s not only crossing party lines, but is taking an active leadership role in getting Donald Trump elected in 2024.

Black women have long been the bedrock of the Democratic Party, consistently delivering crucial votes and key victories. So what drives these women to align with a party that for many seems worlds apart from their communities? What are they gaining, and what are they risking in this controversial political realignment?

Well, joining us today is a dynamic force within the conservative movement: Janiyah Thomas, the Black Media engagement director for Donald Trump’s 2024 reelection campaign. And she previously worked on Senator Tim Scott’s campaign in South Carolina.

As she battles at the forefront of this volatile landscape, we’ll delve into her motivations, the obstacles she faces when defending the indefensible, and how she navigates the tension between her identity and her political stance. So get ready with me for an eye-opening discussion as we explore the challenges of taking on such a public role as a Trump surrogate and his envoy to the Black community.

Advertisement

So without further ado, let’s dive into our conversation with Janiyah Thomas.

Janiyah Thomas:  Yes, thank you for having me.

Taya Graham:  Janiyah, I have to ask, how did you become the Black media engagement director for the entire Trump reelection campaign? What factors influenced your decision to take the role? And I have to say, especially in the light of what people view as President Trump’s controversial stances on issues affecting the Black community?

Janiyah Thomas:  I mean, I think overall, I’ve been doing this for a while. I originally was the Black media coordinator at the RNC. That was my first job. So I’ve been working with Black press, and I love doing it because sometimes I feel like getting good stories, working with Black-owned media, I feel more rewarded because it’s not as easy to do that all the time, versus working with New York Times, like they’ll do anything and write about anything [laughs].

Advertisement

So it feels more rewarding to work with Black-owned media. And also, as you know, a lot of as Black people rely on Black media to give them factual information, especially when we’re in an election year.

So that has everything to do with it. Part of the reason I took it is because it’s something I thought was really cool, and I feel really passionate about working with Black media.

And I love Donald Trump also, but I think it’s important to have somebody that’s able to speak to those issues, speak to that community, and also someone that’s able to develop relationships with that community as well.

Taya Graham:  Well, I can see that you play a really important role in helping the Black community understand the Republican Party. But I would have to say, it has been strongly criticized for its stance on racial issues.

Advertisement

For example, I have to ask you about affirmative action. The Supreme Court, back in 2023, rejected race-based affirmative action in college admissions. We just got information from MIT, there’s a drop in Black and Latino students, an increase in Asian students.

This is just the facts. This is just the new information that’s coming out since the removal of affirmative action. And this was a direct result of the conservative justices that President Trump appointed.

So what would you say to people who are saying that this means the Trump administration means less opportunity for Black Americans and not more?

Janiyah Thomas:  I wouldn’t say that necessarily the takeaway from that shouldn’t be that it’s less opportunity for Black and Brown communities. I think that the overall point of the affirmative action decision is based on the simple fact of merit. I will speak personally to myself and say that I don’t want to be rewarded for something just because I’m Black or I’m a woman. I want to be there and be in that position because I’m the best person to be there.

Advertisement

So the entire argument around affirmative action on the Republican side is we care more about your work ethic, your merit, and you should be rewarded based off of that.

Taya Graham:  Well, you know what? I do agree with you about merit, but I’ll even use myself as an example. I went to a public school, and I actually got great SATs, great grades, but I didn’t have some of the extracurriculars that, let’s say, I might’ve had if I had gone to a more prestigious high school. And one could argue that affirmative action may have given me an opportunity to prove myself. Certainly I would — And I actually have witnessed this — Would’ve been put on academic probation, kicked out, lost scholarships if I didn’t perform.

But what would you say to people who are like, we’re just trying to get the foot in the door, we’re just asking for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, just opportunity?

Janiyah Thomas:  I think overall that argument, what you just said, especially about your high school experience and things like that, a lot of that has to do with state level stuff when it comes to the education system. And I think that we need to focus more on those types of issues at the state and local level, especially when we’re talking about schools in inner city communities.

Advertisement

And I think that something else we need to start doing better is implementing more mentorship programs so that these people in these underprivileged communities have more options and know that there’s another way out or there’s other things that you could be doing. There’s more to life than just what you’re seeing in the neighborhood.

Taya Graham:  How would you reconcile President Trump’s behavior, which critics say often contradicts conservative values? Not to be crude, but if Vice President Harris had been married three times and had five children with three different men, I think people would not consider her a representative of conservative values. I think people would be very critical of those personal choices.

If you can respond to critics of the former president who say he does not embody conservative values or Christian values, what would you tell them?

Janiyah Thomas:  I think a lot of these critics, a lot of it’s coming from media people, which, from my experience, their perception of reality and what actual voters care about are two different things. So I would say that I’ve never heard of an actual regular voter when we’ve been on the trail mentioning any of these things.

Advertisement

The point is to say to the critics, we saw what four years of President Trump looked like, we saw what four years of Kamala Harris and the Biden administration looks like, and I think that for a lot of us, especially Black and Brown people, we were all doing better under President Trump’s leadership. And I think that it’s more about what he’s done as a candidate and what he’s done as the president of the United States, less and less about his personal life.

Taya Graham:  Well, it’s interesting you said that because, as the Black media engagement director, you’re trying to reach out to the Black community and show people that the Republican Party perhaps isn’t what it’s painted by the media, that it is inclusive.

But I would say this: President Trump selected J.D. Vance as his vice president. I would say if he wanted to show the Republican Party was in a new era and welcoming Black and Brown Americans, Senator Tim Scott would’ve been an excellent choice. So I’m just curious what your take is on the choice of Vance over Scott, and do you think that affects the party’s image among Black voters?

Janiyah Thomas:  Like I said earlier, we care about merit and who’s the best person for the job, and President Trump made that decision and chose J.D. Vance as our vice president candidate. Obviously, I’m from South Carolina. I think Tim Scott’s amazing. But I mean, it’s not always about what you look like to show people we’re the party of being inclusive. I think we can do that in multiple ways.

Advertisement

President Trump is not the traditional Republican candidate. So I think a lot of the things that he’s done and is wanting to do haven’t always aligned with traditional Republican politics. So I think there’s ways to show that we’re inclusive and want more people to come join the party.

Example, having someone like Amber Rose speaking at our convention. That’s not something George Bush may have done [laughs], but just simple things like that, just showing and showing up. We’ve been going to Democrat-ran cities and meeting with voters there, and that’s not stuff traditional Republicans do either. So I think there’s more ways to show that he wants more people in the party and to be more inclusive versus who the vice presidential candidate is.

And I think overall our message with Black voters resonates the best with President Trump. I think that the reason we’re seeing an uptick of Black voters supporting President Trump is because they like his message. And again, like I said earlier, they’ve seen four years of Trump and they’ve seen four years of this administration, and I think that’s made it very simple for a lot of Black and Brown voters.

Taya Graham:  There are people who feel that… I mean, Black women are considered the bedrock of the Democratic Party. And of course, there are Christian conservative women that still vote Democrat. So how do you respond to critics who say that you and other Black conservatives in leadership roles are there just for optics, or even worse, doing this for cynical reasons? How would you respond to that?

Advertisement

Janiyah Thomas:  I’ll say, at the end of the day, I don’t have to explain myself to anybody but the Lord and my parents [laughs]. So my motive for doing what I’m doing has nothing to do with cynical reasons or to be the token Black person.

Like I said earlier, the role of being able to have someone that can engage with Black press and has developed relations with Black press is very important in this election cycle. So I think that is the reason why I’m here.

I care about making momentum with Black voters, and I care about getting our message to that audience, whether that’s traditional, non-traditional, or Black-owned media. That’s my overall goal.

So I would say the critics and people are going to say what they want to say. They’re going to say stuff regardless if you’re on the right or the left. There’s always going to be somebody criticizing you. But I mean, we always get that typical, you’re an Uncle Tom. You’re a token, whatever.

Advertisement

And at this point, I don’t care anymore. But it is more hurtful coming from other Black people because I think that the larger conversation we need to have as a community is we need to talk more about why we can’t have conversations, why we can’t agree to disagree, why it has to be a whole family fallout because one of us wants to think differently than the rest of the family.

I think the bigger conversation is what can we do better as a people to be able to have those tough conversations? Because if we want equality, then I think that means equality on the right and on the left.

Taya Graham:  That’s a really interesting point that you want there to be space for diversity of opinion. And you pointed out, quite rightly, that the media sometimes is at fault in helping to, let’s say, inflame rhetoric or highlight questionable rhetoric. In particular, I would say there has been quite a bit of discussion around President Trump and Sen. Vance questioning Vice President Kamala Harris’s Blackness. How would you even define personally what it is to be Black enough in America? Isn’t that really divisive rhetoric?

Janiyah Thomas:  The funny thing is I hear more white people asking this question than Black people, especially when it comes to media. One, I’ll say that what he has said, especially during the NABJ conventions in that situation in particular, he didn’t say anything that Black Twitter hasn’t been saying for years, first of all. So I mean, if your algorithm aligns that way, then you’ve seen these tweets and you’ve seen these things.

Advertisement

And the point of it is basically to say that she is a flip-flopper, and she goes back and forth on her identity and policy. So the point is to say, if you can’t stand firm in your identity, how can we trust what you say you’re going to do as the President of the United States?

Taya Graham:  But the thing is though, she went to a historic Black university, she joined a Black sorority, it’s not like she has…

Janiyah Thomas:  But since when are those qualifications for Blackness? I know white people that have done the same thing [both laugh]. I think we need to stop trying to categorize ourselves and put ourselves in this box to say, okay, well, you did XYZ, so that makes you Black enough. I don’t think that those two things are the qualifications, but I don’t think there is a qualification. I don’t think it matters what she is or what she isn’t. I think it’s more so about what she has done and what she can do.

Taya Graham:  Let me ask you this. This conversation around being Black enough, don’t you think this rhetoric risks alienating voters? If Black Twitter is talking about it, if white people in the media are asking about this, this idea of being Black enough, it makes me go back to the one-drop rule and people being measured in sixteenths, in quarters, in eighths. To bring that up, I understand that you say you think it’s a symbol of flip-flopping, but this is the type of rhetoric that seems to divide, not unite.

Advertisement

Janiyah Thomas:  No, I understand what you’re saying, but I’ll say that I think that we need to focus more on removing her race and gender out of the conversation and focus more on the policies. I feel like the more we keep focusing on whether she’s Black enough, Black people have been having a conversation about who’s Black enough forever. And are we ever going to get to a conclusion? Probably not [both laugh].

So does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? We’re definitely not going to get to a conclusion before election day, so why are we still talking about it? I think we need to talk more about the things she’s done in the past and what she’s been doing as the vice president and what she claims she wants to do in the future.

Taya Graham:  Janiyah, that’s actually a fair point to put aside race and gender. And so let’s put it aside for a moment and have you address some of the broader concerns that Trump’s policies are divisive or harmful to American democracy.

So for example, there are Republicans like Olivia Troye who said they felt more welcomed at the DNC, arguing that they were voting for democracy rather than for Democrats. So how do you counter this narrative? What would your response be to those Republicans like Ana Navarro or Stephanie Grisham, who was a former White House press secretary? What would you say to these lifelong Republicans who say that Trump is a threat to democracy?

Advertisement

Janiyah Thomas:  I think that we had a traditional convention with traditional votes from the delegates. Yes, they just shoved Kamala Harris down everyone’s throat, basically, with their process. So I’ll say that I think that I don’t care as much about what they’re doing and saying at their convention on the left or whatever, and these Republicans or former Republicans going to join and vote for democracy, as they say.

At our convention, we had Never Trumpers for Trump, including our vice presidential candidate. We don’t talk about it a lot, but he was, at one point, a Never Trumper, and now he is on our presidential ticket with him. I think we care more about uniting the party and they care less about that. So if they feel like going to the DNC is they’re upholding democracy, then that’s their business.

But I think that most people can see that what we’ve done on our side is… Nothing about what we’ve done, nobody’s lost rights with President Trump as the president. I don’t think that that argument of upholding democracy, we’ve never done anything to do the opposite. I think, if anything, we could say the opposite about the left.

Taya Graham:  Well, I think people would assert, and actually I’ve had conversations about this because I was really excited to have the opportunity to speak with you and Tia, and they are genuinely concerned that former President Trump would not accept election results if they were not in favor. And they did point to Jan. 6 and the things he said that day and what occurred as an example of that, as well as some of his recent comments.

Advertisement

That’s where this pushback is coming from, from people who really are concerned that he would not accept election results and perhaps stall and stall the process.

Janiyah Thomas:  Again, as I said earlier, I think this is another thing that I only hear coming from the D.C. people or people in the media. I don’t think that the Jan. 6 situation is a top of mind issue for voters. I think what people care about is the economy. They care about immigration. They care about crime. Those are the biggest issues for people. I’ve never once heard a voter say Jan. 6 is a determining factor in the election for them.

Taya Graham:  You brought up some good points in that these are not the things that voters are really interested in. They don’t really care who spoke at the RNC, or if the DNC had people who are former Republicans, or if the RNC didn’t have former Republican presidents come out and show their support.

So if you say these sorts of things don’t matter, then you’re saying that policy does. What are some of these policies that you say people are excited to hear that the Trump administration is offering? If you could give me some examples of the policies that you’ve told voters about and they’re excited by.

Advertisement

Janiyah Thomas:  I’ll start with my favorite, the opportunity zone funding that he did with Sen. Tim Scott. I think a lot of people don’t really understand the concept of opportunity zones. Basically what it did was it put private investment into distressed communities, and most of these communities were communities of color, and it generated billions of dollars in these communities.

And secondly, I would say his tax cuts during his administration also boosted the economy. So I think that voters…

Taya Graham:  Well, I’m sorry to interrupt you there, but there definitely is, I would say, solid research that suggests that the tax cuts benefited wealthy folks more than it did, let’s say, middle-class and lower-income folks. That this is a continuation of the Reagan cuts on some of our wealthiest members of our country, going from what was a 70% income tax rate, right now we’re down to what? I think the Harris administration is trying to push it back up to 23%?

There were huge tax cuts that one could argue stimulated the economy, but truly benefited some of the wealthiest people in our country. These weren’t tax cuts that lower-income and middle-class people received.

Advertisement

Janiyah Thomas:  I think that what President Trump has done did benefit middle-class people. I think that stimulating the economy and creating more jobs benefits middle-class and lower-class Americans. I think especially when we’re talking about the unemployment rate around Black people, he had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the most recent 10 years or so. And I think that I hear a lot of people talk about that, especially in Chicago. I’ve heard people mention how they are not getting jobs because illegal immigrants are getting handed jobs in these neighborhoods.

So I think that during Trump’s administration, I think a lot of people were better off financially overall, whether you’re upper-middle-class, middle-class, wealthy people. I think everybody was better off because of his economy. And I think that his economy stimulated in a horizontal way versus a vertical way.

And I’ll say that a lot of Black voters care about, especially when we’re talking about the jobs thing. In Chicago alone that’s been a huge issue that they did not want to talk too much about at the DNC. But a lot of resources have been going to these illegal immigrants, and they’re looking over the people that have been in these neighborhoods for decades.

Taya Graham:  I have to admit that is something that I’ve heard as a concern from people in my community, in the Black community, that they’re concerned that immigrants, in particular Latinos, are being offered work that they would prefer to be offered. And that’s just simply on an anecdotal level.

Advertisement

But what you’re referring to sounds to me like trickle-down economics. That sounds to me like Reaganomics where you give tax cuts up here and that’s going to stimulate the economy and the money’s going to come down. And this is actually, I don’t know if you watch the DNC if you put yourself through that, but former President Bill Clinton got on stage and said during the period where Democrats are in charge, 50 million jobs were created from his presidency onward, and only one million of those came from the Republican Party.

And even if you control for the impact of the pandemic, that’s still a big lead on jobs being created. How do you respond to former president Clinton saying something like that?

Janiyah Thomas:  I would say they’ve had the White House for 16 out of the last 20 years, I think. I’m not have an accurate number on that, but they’ve had the power for most of this amount of time. And I’ll say that, yes, I understand that they’re trying to say the same thing now about these new job numbers that they’re implementing, that they claim that they don’t know where some of the numbers came from or whatever.

I’ll say that I think that the job numbers, and especially when we’re talking in Black and Brown communities, a lot of these jobs have been documented, especially this most recent jobs report, have been documented that are going to illegal people, and they’re not going to people in these communities.

Advertisement

So yeah, maybe there are more jobs, maybe there aren’t. But the point is that the people in these communities that have been there for decades aren’t getting these resources, is what I’m saying.

Taya Graham:  Well, Janiyah, because I want to move to another topic, I am not going to bring up what are these Black jobs. If this is a Black jobs thing, I’m not even going to go there.

But I’m going to actually move on to women’s rights, in particular, the right to choose, pro-life, pro-choice, depending on how you view it. And so let me follow up with you on this.

At the DNC, there were women who came forward, one woman who nearly lost her life to an ectopic pregnancy because she couldn’t get termination services by doctors because they were afraid of prosecution. There was a very moving story of a young woman who was on stage, she’d been sexually assaulted by her stepfather, and she had to have an abortion at age 12.

Advertisement

So I have to ask you, hearing these women’s stories, how does the Trump administration want to move forward on this issue? Because as we’ve seen as some of these hard-line rules that have come into effect to prevent any form of abortion from six weeks onward or at all, no exceptions, rape or incest, how does the Trump administration want to move forward on this issue?

Sen. Vance has come out very firmly against any exceptions for rape or incest. Is there any chance that President Trump will go against some of his fellow Republicans and put his trust in women to make these decisions and choose to take government interference out of the picture? Will he choose to push aside his fellow Republicans and put his trust back in women?

Janiyah Thomas:  I’ll make this answer very short and simple because I don’t want to get into the personal stuff, but I will say that President Trump has come out and said that he’s not promoting a national abortion ban. Whether the media wants to cover it or not, he’s not doing that. And basically the point was, even with the Supreme Court case, is to leave it to the states.

So what he stands for is leaving the abortion rights, women’s rights, reproductive rights, or whatever we want to call it, is up to the states to decide.

Advertisement

Taya Graham:  There’s a good portion of Americans, and I would say this from polls as well as social media, as well as even our own comment section on YouTube, there’s a good portion of Americans that find former President Trump and Sen. Vance’s remarks insulting, even divisive.

There were Vance’s remarks on people without children not contributing to society, that they don’t have any true stake in its future. And of course, the infamous childless cat ladies remark. There are some really derogatory remarks that President Trump made about women, women who are admired journalists, whether it was April Ryan or, recently, Rachel Scott of ABC, he referred to them both as nasty. He even called Maxine Waters, Sen. Waters low IQ. So these things people do remember.

So how do you address concerns of voters who feel alienated and even alarmed by this rhetoric, who say, this feels to me that President Trump, Sen. Vance, they don’t respect women? How would you respond to people who remember those remarks and it hurt them?

Janiyah Thomas:  I’ll say, I think it’s important for people to do their research past a 30-second clip. I think that a lot of times, especially in these situations with candidates or just even any type of public figure, we always see on social media, or even on the news, it’s like a 30-second clip. You don’t get the whole gist of the argument.

Advertisement

I’m not talking about anything, one particular comment in general, but I’m saying that the left sits there and they name call, they attack President Trump all day. But if he says anything remotely negative about somebody, then it’s a whole ordeal. And it’s not fair to always have a double standard with the right and the left.

And I’ll say also that I think that…

Taya Graham:  Well, it’s a little different when the president of the United States calls you out as opposed to the power that a reporter might have. If the president of the United States calls you out and says that you’re nasty or that you’re low IQ, the whole world hears that. It’s not the same as somebody on social media calling him an authoritarian. I mean, that’s the power of the office.

Janiyah Thomas:  But this current administration has also attacked him personally, and they call him a racist, and that’s the narrative they like to spin around him all day. So there’s not that much of a difference between the two things, to me, if you’re attacking somebody’s character in that way.

Advertisement

Taya Graham:  Well, the difference, and now, this is not to go on the defense for the Biden-Harris administration by any means, but the differences are those are two sets of equals; people who both held the office of the presidency, who have wielded political power, who have money in their bank accounts. That’s different than a president calling women nasty. There are other remarks, I won’t go into detail out of respect for your time and being here, but there have been some very derogatory remarks made towards women.

Janiyah Thomas:  Well, I’ll say that, I mean, I think that we all need to, like I said, do our research and look into somebody’s past before you make an assumption about who they are as a person. I’ll say President Trump has done a lot to empower women. He’s empowered female architects in designing his buildings in the past. I mean, we have a female chief of… I mean, not chief of staff, sorry, a female campaign manager. He’s also had Kellyanne Conway as a campaign manager. He had Sarah Sanders, one of the first women and mothers to be press secretary. He’s had a bunch of powerful women around him.

And I think that also, even if we’re talking about Kellyanne Conway, she’s one of the first women to win a presidential election. So I think that he’s done a lot to empower women.

And I think that the narrative that they try to spin around him isn’t always fair. And I think that if people did more of their research and looked into his past, you would see he has done a lot to empower women. And I’m here, obviously so [laughs].

Advertisement

Taya Graham:  Well, I think the strongest case that he currently has is the fact that you’re here and you’re kind enough to spend your time with us, and we really do appreciate that.

I’ll just ask you one last question out of respect for your time, and hopefully this will give you some room to share why you support Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party so much. So I’m going to quote Civil Rights legend John Lewis here. He said, “We may have arrived on different boats, but we’re all in the same boat now.”

So in a time where many people believe that Trump’s rhetoric seems to divide rather than unite, how do you interpret and respond to this sentiment within your work? How do you want to communicate to Americans that Trump’s boat is big enough for all of us?

Janiyah Thomas:  I have two part answers to this. The first thing is to go based off of the quote you just stated. I think that, especially with the younger generation, our concept of collective consciousness may not be as true anymore because we have a lot of Black people that grow up in rural environments, we have Black people that grow up in the suburbs, and we have Black people in the inner city communities.

Advertisement

And I can say for my family, I grew up completely different than some of my cousins that are still in Virginia. So my outlook on life is completely different than theirs. So the way I vote and the way I feel politically might not always be the same as those people. And I think that it’s important for all of us to look at the issues that matter to you and vote your issues.

I’m 100% down with supporting President Trump because I care so much about the economy, and he is also one candidate that implemented the First Step Act, and that’s a huge criminal justice reform that has taken us a step in the right direction. So I can say that I think that Black people have a true champion and a leader in President Trump. And I think that our boat is for everybody.

We want all people here. We’re welcoming to all people. Like I said earlier, President Trump is not the traditional Republican candidate, and I think that his message and his straightforwardness resonates with a lot of people. And I think that, at least with President Trump, what you hear is what you get. He will stand on his word, and he doesn’t make promises he’s not going to keep. So I’m with President Trump because of that.

Taya Graham:  Well, thank you so much. And even in just hearing that answer, I have a million more questions I would want to ask you, but I’m trying to be good in trying to respect your time. So Janiyah, I just want to thank you again. Thank you so much for joining me. I do appreciate it.

Advertisement

Janiyah Thomas:  Yes, thank you.

Taya Graham:  I want to thank everyone listening for staying with me as I try to unravel the complexities and contradictions of Black women aligning themselves with the GOP in today’s polarized climate. Today’s discussion certainly has given me a lot to think about, and I’m so grateful that our guest was willing to let me really delve deep into her belief systems and even test those foundations. We’ve explored the complex intersection of race, gender, and politics through the eyes of an undeniably powerful Black woman who is deeply embedded in the conservative movement.

Janiyah Thomas, as the Black media engagement director for Trump’s reelection campaign, is focused on amplifying policies she believes will make inroads with the Black community. And although I think there are many valid criticisms of the statements and policies she defends, I respect her for being willing to put her money where her mouth is, even though she is betting it all on red.

Thank you for joining me on The Real News Network, and I hope this is just the beginning of what will be a series of provocative conversations. And this includes a conversation on book banning and LGBTQ rights with Tia Bess, the national engagement director of Moms for Liberty, a Black woman who’s not only married to another woman, but who is also profoundly Christian. We should have a link in the description if you’d like to take a listen or watch the video version of our conversation.

Advertisement

I’m your host, Taya Graham. Thank you so much for listening and spending your time with me and The Real News Network.

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

News

‘Doomsday’ Glacier Is Set to Melt Faster

Published

on

‘Doomsday’ Glacier Is Set to Melt Faster

Tidal action on the underside of the Thwaites Glacier in the Antarctic will “inexorably” accelerate melting this century, according to new research by British and American scientists. The researchers warn the faster melting could destabilize the entire West Antarctic ice sheet, leading to its eventual collapse.

The massive glacier—which is roughly the size of Florida—is of particular interest to scientists because of the rapid speed at which it is changing and the impact its loss would have on sea levels (the reason for its “Doomsday” moniker). It also acts as an anchor holding back the West Antarctic ice sheet.

Warmed ocean water melts doomsday glacier faster
Yasin Demirci—Anadolu/Getty Images

More than 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) thick in places, Thwaites has been likened to a cork in a bottle. Were it to collapse, sea levels would rise by 65 centimeters (26 inches). That’s already a significant amount, given oceans are currently rising 4.6 millimeters a year. But if it led to the eventual loss of the entire ice sheet, sea levels would rise 3.3 meters.

While some computer models suggest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions under the 2015 Paris Agreement may mitigate the glacier’s retreat, the outlook for the glacier remains “grim,” according to a report by the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration (ITGC), a project that includes researchers from the British Antarctic Survey, the U.S. National Science Foundation and the U.K.’s Natural Environment Research Council.

Thwaites has been retreating for more than 80 years but that process has accelerated in the past 30, Rob Larter, a marine geophysicist who contributed to the research, said in a news release. “Our findings indicate it is set to retreat further and faster.” Other dynamics that aren’t currently incorporated into large-scale models could speed up its demise, the new research shows. 

Advertisement

Using a torpedo-shaped robot, scientists determined that the underside of Thwaites is insulated by a thin layer of cold water. However, in areas where the parts of the glacier lift off the seabed and the ice begins to float, tidal action is pumping warmer sea water, at high pressure, as far as 10 kilometers under the ice. The process is disrupting that insulating layer and will likely significantly speed up how fast the grounding zone—the area where the glacier sits on the seabed—retreats.

A similar process has been observed on glaciers in Greenland.

The group also flagged a worst-case scenario in which 100-meter-or-higher ice cliffs at the front of Thwaites are formed and then rapidly calve off icebergs, causing runaway glacial retreat that could raise sea levels by tens of centimeters in this century. However, the researchers said it’s too early to know if such scenarios are likely.

A key unanswered question is whether the loss of Thwaites Glacier is already irreversible. Heavy snowfalls, for example, regularly occur in the Antarctic and help replenish ice loss, Michelle Maclennan, a climate scientist with the University of Colorado at Boulder, explained during a news briefing. “The problem though is that we have this imbalance: There is more ice loss occurring than snowfall can compensate for,” she said. 

Advertisement

Increased moisture in the planet’s atmosphere, caused by global warming evaporating ocean waters, could result in more Antarctic snow—at least for a while. At a certain point, though, that’s expected to switch over to rain and surface melting on the ice, creating a situation where the glacier is melting from above and below. How fast that happens depends in part on nations’ progress to slow climate change.

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

David Lammy seeks emergency boost to aid cash to offset rising cost of migrant hotels

Published

on

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Britain’s foreign secretary David Lammy is pushing for an emergency top-up to development spending as ballooning costs of supporting asylum seekers threaten to drain overseas aid to its lowest level since 2007.

The UK government spent £4.3bn hosting asylum seekers and refugees in Britain in the last financial year, more than a quarter of its £15.4bn overseas aid budget, according to official data. This more than consumed the £2.5bn increases in the aid budget scheduled between 2022 and 2024 by former Conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt.

Advertisement

People familiar with Lammy’s thinking say he fears that if Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, resists calls to at least match Hunt’s offer, the aid budget will be further eviscerated, undermining the government’s ambitions on the global stage.

Currently, the housing of asylum seekers in hotels is controlled by the Home Office but largely paid for out of the aid budget, a set-up introduced in 2010 when spending on the programme was relatively modest.

In the longer term, development agencies and some Foreign Office officials want the costs capped or paid for by the Home Office itself.

However, such a move would be politically fraught, the people said, as it would require billions of pounds of extra funding for the Home Office at a time the government is preparing widespread cuts across departments.

Advertisement

Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, is due to attend a string of upcoming international events, starting with the UN general assembly this month, then a Commonwealth summit in Samoa, a G20 meeting in Brazil, and COP-29 climate talks in Azerbaijan later this autumn.

International partners will be looking at these meetings for signs that the change of government in the UK marks a change in direction on development.

Britain’s leading role was eroded by Rishi Sunak after he cut the previously ringfenced spending from 0.7 per cent of gross national income to 0.5 per cent when he was chancellor in 2020.

“When he turns up at the UN next week and the G20 and COP a few weeks later, the PM has a unique opportunity to reintroduce the UK under Labour as a trustworthy partner that sees the opportunity of rebooting and reinvesting in a reformed fairer international financial system,” said Jamie Drummond, co-founder of aid advocacy group One.

Advertisement

“But to be that trusted partner you need to be an intentional investor — not an accidental cutter.”

Speaking on Tuesday in a speech outlining UK ambitions to regain a leading role in the global response to climate change, Lammy said the government wanted to get back to spending 0.7 per cent of GNI on overseas aid but that it could not be done overnight.   

“Part of the reason the funding has not been there is because climate has driven a migration crisis,” he said. “We have ended up in this place where we made a choice to spend development aid on housing people across the country and having a huge accommodation and hotel bill as a consequence,” he said.

Under OECD rules, some money spent in-country on support for refugees and asylum seekers can be classified as aid because it constitutes a form of humanitarian assistance.

Advertisement

But the amount the UK has been spending on refugees from its aid budget has shot up from an average of £20mn a year between 2009-2013 to £4.3bn last year, far more than any other OECD donor country, according to Bond, the network of NGOs working in international development.

Spending per refugee from the aid budget has also risen from an average of £1,000 a year in 2009-2013 to around £21,500 in 2021, largely as a result of the use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact watchdog argues that the Home Office has had little incentive to manage the funds carefully because they come from a different department’s budget.

In her July 29 speech outlining the dire fiscal straits that Labour inherited from the previous Conservative government, Reeves projected the cost of the asylum system would rise to £6.4bn this year.

Advertisement

Labour was hoping to cut this by at least £800mn, she said, by ending plans to deport migrants to Rwanda. A Home Office official said the government was also ensuring that asylum claims were dealt with faster and those ineligible deported quickly.

But the Foreign Office projects that on current trends, overseas aid as a proportion of UK income (when asylum costs are factored in) will drop to 0.35 per cent of national income by 2028.

Without emergency funding to plug the immediate cost of housing tens of thousands of migrants in hotels, that will happen as soon as this year, according to Bond, bringing overseas aid levels to their lowest as a proportion of national income, since 2007.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said: “The UK’s future [official development assistance] budget will be announced at the Budget. We would not comment on speculation.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

News

AI translation now ‘good enough’ for Economist to deploy

Published

on

AI translation now 'good enough' for Economist to deploy

The Economist has deployed AI-translated content on its budget-friendly “snack-sized” app Espresso after deciding the technology had reached the “good enough” mark.

Ludwig Siegele, senior editor for AI initiatives at The Economist, told Press Gazette that AI translation will never be a “solved problem”, especially in journalism because it is difficult to translate well due to its cultural specificities.

However he said it has reached the point where it is good enough to have introduced AI-powered, in-app translations in French, German, Mandarin and Spanish on The Economist’s “bite-sized”, cut-price app Espresso (which has just over 20,000 subscribers).

Espresso has also just been made free to high school and university students aged 16 and older globally as part of a project by The Economist to make its journalism more accessible to audiences around the world.

Siegele said that amid “lots of hype” about AI, the questions to ask are: “What is it good for? Does it work? And does it work with what we’re trying to do?”

Advertisement


He added that the project to make The Economist’s content “more accessible to more people” via Espresso was a “good point to start”.

Content from our partners
Advertisement

“The big challenge of AI is the technology, at least for us, is not good enough,” he continued. “It’s interesting, but to really develop a product, I think in many cases, it’s not good enough yet. But in that case, it worked.

“I wouldn’t say that translation is a solved problem, it is never going to be a solved problem, especially in journalism, because journalism is really difficult to translate. But it’s good enough for that type of content.”

The Economist is using AI translation tool DeepL alongside its own tech on the backend.

“It’s quite complicated,” Siegele said. “The translation is the least of it at this point. The translation isn’t perfect. If you look at it closely it has its quirks, but it’s pretty good. And we’re working on a kind of second workflow which makes it even better.”

Advertisement

The AI-translated text is not edited by humans because, Siegele said, the “workflow is so tight” on Espresso which updates around 20 times a day.

“There is no natural thing where we can say ‘okay, now everything is done. Let’s translate, and let’s look at the translations and make sure they’re perfect’. That doesn’t work… The only thing we can do is, if it’s really embarrassing, we’ll take it down and the next version in 20 minutes will be better.”

One embarrassing example, Siegele admitted, is that the tool turned German Chancellor Olaf Scholz into a woman.

But Siegele said a French reader has already got in touch to say: “I don’t read English. This is great. Finally, I can read The Economist without having to put it into Google Translate and get bad translations.”

Advertisement

The Economist’s AI-translated social videos

The Economist simultaneously launched AI-translated videos on its social platforms in the same four languages.

The videos are all a maximum of 90 seconds meaning it is not too much work to check them – crucial as, unlike the Espresso article translations, they are edited by humans (native language speakers working for The Economist) taking about 15 minutes per video.

For the videos The Economist is using AI video tool Hey Gen. Siegele said: “The way that works is you give them the original video and they do a provisional translation and then you can proofread the translation. So whereas the translations for the app are basically automatic – I mean, we can take them down and we will be able to change them, but at this point, they’re completely automatic – videos are proofread, and so in this way we can make sure that the translations are really good.”

In addition they are using “voice clones” which means journalists who speak in a video have some snippets of themselves given to Hey Gen to build and that is used to create the finished product.

Advertisement

The voice clones are not essential, Siegele explained, as translations can be done automatically regardless. Journalists can opt out of having their voices used in this way, and any data stored will be deleted if the employee leaves The Economist. But the clones do mean the quality is “much better”.

They have a labelling system for the app articles and videos that can show they are “AI translated” or “AI transformed”. But, Siegele said, they are “not going to have a long list of AI things we may have used to build this article for brainstorming or fact checking or whatever, because in the end it’s like a tool, it’s like Google search. We are still responsible, and there’s almost always a human except for edge cases like the Espresso translations or with podcast transcripts…”

Economist ‘will be strategic’ when choosing how to roll out AI

Asked whether the text translation could be rolled out to more Economist products, Siegele said: “That’s of course a goal but it remains to be seen.”

He said that although translation for Espresso is automated, it would not be the goal to do the same throughout The Economist.

Advertisement

He also said they still have to find out if people are “actually interested” and if they can “develop a translation engine that is good enough”.

“But I don’t think we will become a multi-linguistic, multi-language publication anytime soon. We will be much more strategic with what we what we translate… But I think there is globally a lot of demand for good journalism, and if the technology makes it possible, why not expand the access to our content?

“If it’s not too expensive – and it was too expensive before. It’s no longer.”

Other ways The Economist is experimenting with AI, although they have not yet been implemented, include a style bot and fact-checking.

Advertisement

Expect to see “some kind of summarisation” of articles, Siegele continued, “which probably will go beyond the five bullet points or three bullet points you increasingly see, because that’s kind of table stakes. People expect that. But there are other ways of doing it”.

He also suggested some kind of chatbot but “not an Economist GPT – that’s difficult and people are not that interested in that. Perhaps more narrow chatbots”. And said versioning, or repurposing articles for different audiences or different languages, could also follow.

“The usual stuff,” Siegele said. “There’s only so many good ideas out there. We’re working on all of them.” But he said he wants colleagues to come up with solutions to their problems rather than him as “the AI guy” imposing things.

Advertisement

Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our “Letters Page” blog

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Kentucky sheriff held over fatal shooting of judge in court

Published

on

Kentucky sheriff held over fatal shooting of judge in court

A Kentucky sheriff has been arrested after fatally shooting a judge in his chambers, police say.

District Judge Kevin Mullins died at the scene after being shot multiple times in the Letcher County Courthouse, Kentucky State Police said.

Letcher County Sheriff Shawn Stines, 43, has been charged with one count of first-degree murder.

The shooting happened on Thursday after an argument inside the court, police said, but they have not yet revealed a motive.

Advertisement

Officials said Mullins, 54, was shot multiple times at around 14:00 local time on Thursday at the court in Whitesburg, Kentucky, a small rural town about 150 miles (240km) south-east of Lexington.

Sheriff Stines was arrested at the scene without incident, Kentucky State Police said. They did not reveal the nature of the argument before the shooting.

According to local newspaper the Mountain Eagle, Sheriff Stines walked into the judge’s outer office and told court employees that he needed to speak alone with Mullins.

The two entered the judge’s chambers, closing the door behind them. Those outside heard gun shots, the newspaper reported.

Advertisement

Sheriff Stines reportedly walked out with his hands up and surrendered to police. He was handcuffed in the courthouse foyer.

The state attorney general, Russell Coleman, said in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that his office “will fully investigate and pursue justice”.

Kentucky State Police spokesman Matt Gayheart told a news conference that the town was shocked by the incident

“This community is small in nature, and we’re all shook,” he said.

Advertisement

Mr Gayheart said that 50 employees were inside the court building when the shooting occurred.

No-one else was hurt. A school in the area was briefly placed on lockdown.

Kentucky Supreme Court Chief Justice Laurance B VanMeter said he was “shocked by this act of violence”.

Announcing Judge Mullins’ death on social media, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear said: “There is far too much violence in this world, and I pray there is a path to a better tomorrow.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Chinese EV makers boost Hong Kong stock index

Published

on

Electric-vehicle makers boosted Hong Kong stocks on Friday, as major indices rose across the board in the wake of the US Federal Reserve’s interest rate cut.

The Hang Seng index rose 1.8 per cent, with Chinese EV companies Xpeng and Geely Auto adding 9 per cent and 4.8 per cent, respectively.

Japan’s Topix rose 1.5 per cent, while South Korea’s Kospi added 1 per cent.

Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 rose 0.4 per cent, led by clinical trial groups Euren Pharmaceuticals and Telix Pharmaceuticals, which gained as much as 6.7 per cent and 4.9 per cent, respectively.

Advertisement

On Thursday, the S&P 500 gained 1.7 per cent, hitting a new record after the Fed’s half-point rate cut announcement on Wednesday.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Starmer ‘in control’ and ‘Al Fayed rape scandal’

Published

on

Starmer 'in control' and 'Al Fayed rape scandal'
"I'm still in control, says Starmer as feud erupts" reads the Daily Telegraph headline

A picture of Scarlett Johansson features on the front of Daily Telegraph as she attends the London premiere of film Transformers One which she stars in. The paper leads on Sir Keir Starmer denying he has lost control of Downing Street “despite civil war breaking out at the centre of his government”. It adds tensions in No 10 and questions over chief of staff Sue Gray’s £170,000 salary threaten to overshadow the Labour Party conference.
The i headline reads "Middle East steps closer to regional war"

A funeral in Lebanon is the main picture on the front of the i newspaper. It reports the Middle East is “steps closer to regional war” as Israel bombs southern Lebanon. Armed group Hezbollah was targeted with pager and walkie-talkie attacks. Elsewhere, it says there is a frantic hunt for the mole who leaked Sue Gray’s salary to the BBC.
The Guardian headline reads "Hezbollah chief vows 'retribution' against Israel after wave of attacks"

The Guardian leads with Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah threatening Israel with “tough retribution and just punishment” in a speech on Thursday. He also threatened to strike Israel “where it expects and where it does not”. Hot To Go! singer Chappel Roan also features on the page, telling the paper: “My whole life has changed”.
Reeves told to reverse cuts after £10bn boost, reads the lead story in the Times

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been provided with a £10bn budget boost by the Bank of England which is increasing pressure on her to ease spending cuts and tax rises, the Times writes. The paper says Labour MPs are calling for the cash to be used to delay scrapping some pensioners’ winter fuel payments.
"Al Fayed 'a serial rapist'" headlines the Metro

“Al Fayed ‘a serial rapist’” headlines the Metro as it reports on the BBC investigation into late billionaire and Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed. The papers reports the BBC’s investigation found more than 20 female ex-employees say Mr Al Fayed sexually assaulted or raped them. The Metro writes the tycoon who was “portrayed as the gregarious father” of Diana’s lover Dodi in Netflix’s The Crown “was a monster”.
The Daily Mirror headline reads "shop of horrors"

“Shop of horrors” headlines the Mirror as it picks up the BBC’s story on Mr Al Fayed. The Mirror says at least 100 women are feared to have been sexually abused by the tycoon. It quotes Gemma, his former personal assistant. Speaking to the BBC about Mr Al Fayed, who she accuses of raping her, she said: “He felt like such a powerful man with so much money.”
"I survived atomic bomb tests and cancer but will I survive this winter?"

The Daily Express pictures RAF veteran Jack Barlow who says he survived atomic bomb tests but now asks if he will survive the winter due to his winter fuel payment being “snatched away”.
Financial Times headlines "consumer confidence takes tumble as households fear 'painful Budget'"

The Financial Times says consumer confidence in the UK fell sharply in September, wiping out progress made so far this year. The paper observes it comes despite consumers benefiting from cheaper loans, rising real wages and a decrease in inflation. Elsewhere, it pictures people in Lebanon watching the leader of Hezbollah give a speech in which he vowed revenge on Israel.
Daily Mail headlines "English identity is under threat warns Jenrick"

Tory leadership contender Robert Jenrick has written in the Daily Mail that mass immigration and woke culture have put England’s national identity at risk. He says the ties which bind the nation together are beginning to “fray”. Elsewhere, it reports Mr Starmer is “on the rack” over Ms Gray’s salary and freebies.
The Sun headlines reads: "Ronnie and Laila's 147 break"

The Sun reports Snooker player Ronnie O’Sullivan has split from fiancee actress Laila Rouass.
"What planet are they on" says the Daily Star

The Daily Star asks “what planet are they on?” It says minister defends “cadger PM’s £100k of freebies” as some pensioners lose the winter fuel payment.
News Daily banner
News Daily banner

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.