Blog

MIT Says It Will Not Sign Trump Admin’s Higher Education Compact

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has declined to sign onto the Trump administration’s proposed compact, which would mandate campus reforms in exchange for preferential access to federal funding.

MIT President Sally Kornbluth announced the decision on Oct. 10 in a campus-wide letter attaching her formal response to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who invited nine universities to sign the new agreement.

The proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” would require participating universities to freeze tuition for five years, limit international student enrollment, and adopt the federal government’s biology-based definitions of sex and gender when it comes to sports or single-sex spaces.

Other provisions call for reinstating the SAT requirement for applicants, curbing grade inflation, prohibiting the use of race and sex as factors in admissions or employment, and reforming or dismantling departments that “purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”

MIT ‘Cannot Support the Proposed Approach’

In her response, Kornbluth acknowledged that MIT shares some of the administration’s stated goals, such as focusing on merit, reducing costs for students, and upholding free expression.

“These values and other MIT practices meet or exceed many standards outlined in the document you sent. We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission—work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health, and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law,” Kornbluth wrote.

She also noted that MIT disagreed with a number of the demands, saying that they “would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution” and that the premise of the document is inconsistent with MIT’s core belief that “scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.”

“In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence,” Kornbluth wrote.

“In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences. Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.”

MIT is the first of the nine universities invited to join the compact to publicly reject it. The administration also invited Brown University, Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia, and Vanderbilt University.

It’s unclear why those particular institutions were chosen or whether other schools will be offered the same terms.

The Department of Education did not respond to requests for comment from The Epoch Times by publication time.

Keep reading

Evaluating Trump’s Claim that Ukraine Can Win the War

“Ukraine,” U.S. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social on September 23, “is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back.”

He came to this completely revised conclusion apparently having been briefed on battlefield and economic conditions by U.S. officials, including Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellog and Mike Waltz, who served very briefly as Trump’s National Security Advisor and is now the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. Coming out of those briefings, Trump was now convinced that Russia is “in BIG Economic trouble” and that “Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win.” His advisors stressed that Russia had not made significant territorial gains despite large-scale summer offensives.

After the revision in Trump’s assessment, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Trump now “clearly understands the situation and is well-informed about all aspects of this war.” But does he?

Trump now apparently thinks that Putin is vulnerable because Russia is in economic trouble, although it isn’t exactly clear what trouble Russia is in. The Russian government and central bank are certainly having to walk something of an economic tightrope, trying to lower inflation while not pushing the economy towards some sort of recession. Interest rates remain high, with the Russian Central Bank’s key rate at 17%, impacting consumer spending and investment. Inflation has, however, dropped to much more manageable levels than earlier in the war, and indeed than earlier this year.  Where inflation is now around 8%, it has been as high as just under 18% back in early 2022, still topping 10% earlier this year.

While Russian government plans to increase VAT to help fund the war may contribute to modest increases in inflation, the Russian Central Bank still expects inflation to be down to 6-7% by the end of the year. Lower inflation should allow for the cutting of interest rates. If all of this data was from a Western country it would be seen as positive, but there seems to be a determination on the part of some Western governments and observers to try to put a negative spin on any economic news out of Russia – regardless of what the news is.

Russia has weathered the harshest sanctions regime the West could muster. Russia has the fourth largest economy in the world when measured by purchasing-power parity, which is an assessment of the size of an economy adjusted for the cost of goods and services within it, and is a key measure used by the World Bank. Russia’s GDP growth continues to be more than respectable – currently still expected to be above 1% for 2025 even according to conservative figures. For the first time since the war began, the 2026 budget actually cuts military spending. Russia will officially spend 5.8% of GDP on defense spending. In comparison, Ukraine spends 34.48% of GDP on the military, the largest military burden in the world.

Russia may be facing some economic challenges, but Ukraine is undoubtedly in big trouble and is living hand to mouth. Ukraine has been, for some time, on the verge of economic collapse – and the IMF recently revealed that the situation is far worse than projected. Ukraine has received $145 billion in international aid since the war began, and they have a massive budget deficit they cannot pay. At this point the Ukrainian economy is essentially dependent on foreign assistance. While for the time being the EU currently seems content to carry on bailing Ukraine out, for how long that will last and whether it will be sufficient to keep Ukraine afloat remains to be seen.

The same negative trend for Ukraine is apparent not just for the money to fund the war, but for the troops to fight it. Even if Ukraine had all the money and weapons it needs to equip the war, it is running out of soldiers to fight it. By far the most serious shortage Ukraine is facing is manpower. Millions have left the country, hundreds of thousands have avoided the draft, and, worst of all, hundreds of thousands have been killed or seriously injured. Already by the end of 2023, a close aid to Zelensky had complained that, even if Ukraine had all the weapons they needed, they “don’t have the men to use them.” Two years later, the situation is very much worse.

Keep reading

The modern West and its client states have turned into the main threat to humanity

The idea of pressuring Russia with threats to transfer Tomahawk missiles to Kiev is the worst and most repulsive initiative of Trump.

In the United States — in Chicago, Illinois, and other states — a full-scale civil war is underway between the leftist Marxist-transgender-furry-pervert forces on one side and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) on the other. The Marxist-transgender people are currently winning, attacking immigration officers with lasers and pelting them with trash, but soon weapons will enter the fray. In America, anyone can buy them — even the furries.

The Democratic Party — governors and mayors — firmly stands on the side of the transgender people. These are their stormtroopers: Antifa, environmental activists, body-positivity militants, drug addicts, illegal immigrants, and urban outcasts.

Trump is sending federal troops to support the immigration agency.

The activist judges side with the transgender people. They block all of Trump’s decisions.

In such a situation, direct military threats to the Kremlin (such as transferring Tomahawks to Kiev) are simply reckless.

Trump is in no position to speak to us in such a tone. Indeed, his thoughts have begun to wander. Yesterday, on a plane flying to the Middle East, he began to muse about whether he would get to Heaven — or whether he was already there.

All of this is extremely dangerous. Senile old men, perverts, drug addicts, deranged oligarch-technocrats, sectarians, feminists, and globalist fanatics at the head of Western countries have become the norm.

The modern West and its client states have turned into the main threat to humanity. This civilization has gone insane.

Any hint of common sense in the West is mercilessly crushed at birth — or silenced by a bullet, as in the case of Charlie Kirk.

In such circumstances, it is very hard to imagine how even in theory one could avoid a great war. After all, the threat comes precisely from the West, whose leaders appear to be mentally unstable

Keep reading

UK Regulator Ofcom Uses Online Censorship Law To Fine American Platform 4chan

The operator behind the American imageboard 4chan has been hit with a £20,000 ($26,650) fine by the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom, which, under the controversial censorship law, the Online Safety Act, has begun targeting online platforms.

The penalty comes after 4chan declined to provide details on how, or whether, it’s complying with the legislation that critics of censorship argue grants the UK government broad authority over digital platforms.

The fine had been anticipated since August. That decision has now been finalized, according to a statement issued by the regulator.

Beyond the lump sum, Ofcom will begin charging an additional £100 ($133) every day starting Tuesday, a compounding penalty that will continue for up to 60 days or until 4chan responds to its demands, whichever comes first.

Ofcom’s Director of Enforcement, Suzanne Cater, claimed the agency is serious about enforcing the new law.

“Today sends a clear message that any service which flagrantly fails to engage with Ofcom and their duties under the Online Safety Act can expect to face robust enforcement action.” She further asserted that some platforms are already adopting new safeguards following pressure from the regulator, while warning that services choosing to limit their availability to UK users rather than implement content filters remain under scrutiny.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall celebrated the action, calling it a model of the law in practice. “The Online Safety Act is not just law, it’s a lifeline. Today we’ve seen it in action, holding platforms to account so we can protect people across the UK.”

She went on to claim: “This fine serves a clear warning to those who fail to remove illegal content or protect children from harmful material. We fully back the regulator in taking action against all platforms that do not protect users from the darkest corners of the internet.”

Preston Byrne, who represents 4chan in the case, has previously condemned the action in unambiguous terms.

Byrne called it “an illegal campaign of harassment” against American tech firms, and added, “4chan has broken no laws in the United States – my client will not pay any penalty.”

Keep reading

Bill and Hillary Clinton Postpone Depositions in House Oversight Committee’s Jeffrey Epstein Probe

Are Bill and Hillary dodging their depositions?

We have been closely following the House Oversight Committee review of the prosecutions of late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his incarcerated accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

Some of the most high-profile figures to be deposed are the Democrat power couple Bill and Hillary Clinton.

But when this will happen is still to be decided.

The former President and the former Secretary of State have both pushed back their deposition dates for the Committee’s investigation.

New York Post reported:

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been expected to testify before the panel last week on Oct. 9 — but did not appear — and former President Bill Clinton was slated to be grilled on his ties to Epstein on Tuesday.

But an Oversight Committee spokesperson told The Post Monday that the panel is ‘having conversations with the Clintons’ attorney to accommodate their schedules’.”

“The Clintons were subpoenaed in early August by Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) as part of the panel’s review of the federal government’s probe into Epstein and his convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

‘Everybody in America wants to know what went on in Epstein Island, and we’ve all heard reports that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor there, so he’s a prime suspect to be deposed by the House Oversight Committee’, Comer said of the former president’s subpoena during an interview with Newsmax in August.”

Keep reading

The Myth Of Falling Crime: Why Americans Don’t Trust The Numbers

Every election season, mayors and governors step before cameras to boast that crime is down.

Charts are waved, statistics cited, and carefully crafted talking points deployed to assure anxious citizens that their streets are safer than ever.

Yet when you leave the press conference and walk the sidewalks of Baltimore, Chicago, or Los Angeles, the reality feels far different.

The gap between official numbers and lived experience is wide enough to swallow public trust whole.

The reason for this disconnect is simple: Most crime never gets reported in the first place.

The Baltimore Sun recently highlighted what criminologists have known for decades—about half of all crime in America isn’t captured in police data. Burglaries are only reported 45 percent of the time. Simple assaults, 37 percent. Sexual assaults, a shameful 21 percent. Think about that for a moment: Nearly four out of five sexual assaults never reach the official record. Yet politicians still spin a story that safety is improving.

Why aren’t Americans calling the cops? For many, it’s because they believe the system won’t deliver justice. Victims of property crimes often assume police won’t recover stolen items. Domestic violence survivors fear financial ruin if their abuser is arrested. Immigrants worry that calling 911 might lead to a knock on the door from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In cities like Baltimore, there is a deeply rooted stigma against “snitching” that makes reporting crimes socially dangerous. And for those who simply distrust the police, staying silent feels safer than engaging.

Here’s the political problem: Declining reported crime becomes the official narrative, but citizens’ fear of crime continues to climb. Gallup recently noted Americans are near record highs in expressing concern about violent crime. This is not paranoia—it’s the rational conclusion of people who judge their safety not by government reports but by what they see in their neighborhoods, what they hear from friends, and what they experience personally.

The anecdote of Julian and Kristen Mack, attacked in Baltimore by a group of teenagers, is telling. They never called police because they feared the children might be shot. Another former Homeland Security Department official recounted being assaulted in a D.C. coffee shop but choosing not to report it because he believed nothing meaningful would happen to the mentally ill attacker. When even former law enforcement officers don’t bother reporting crime, the legitimacy of the system is in question.

So what happens next? Officials trumpet lower homicides or robberies as proof of progress. They cut ribbons on new community initiatives and point to “data-driven policing” as evidence of reform. But residents quietly arm themselves, avoid walking alone at night, and lose faith in institutions meant to protect them. A society where people stop trusting the guardians of order is a society drifting toward vigilantism.

Keep reading

The Nobel (War Is) Peace Prize

When it comes to destroying your brand, Norwegian Nobel Committee is the Bud Lite of peace prizes. After all, back in 2009 they gave the Peace Prize to a President Barack Obama who then went on to bomb at least seven countries, set the Middle East on fire, and even conduct drone strikes on American citizens!

Other awardees have had similarly suspicious records as peacemakers. They even gave a Peace Prize to the likes of Henry Kissinger.

This year has proven to be no different. Last week the Nobel Committee announced that the 2025 Peace Prize would go to Venezuelan politician María Corina Machado. Machado has a long history in the Venezuelan opposition including support for and participation in the US-backed, 2002 coup against then-president Hugo Chavez.

She is likewise a strong opponent of current Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, and in 2018 even wrote a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asking for Israel’s assistance in overthrowing the Venezuelan government.

Shouldn’t we be cheering anyone seeking to overthrow Maduro’s authoritarian style of socialism that is hardly helping the people of the country? Perhaps, but what Machado is seeking is very different from working for change in her country’s system of government. She has long worked with and been paid by the US government’s “regime change” apparatus, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

NED was founded under President Reagan to do openly what the CIA has been notorious for doing in secret: overthrowing foreign governments that Washington doesn’t like. Scratch any of the “color revolutions” of the past 30 years and you will find the participation of the National Endowment for Democracy.

Nowhere have these coups and revolutions promoted and funded by NED (and the CIA itself) been even remotely successful. They have only produced broken, ravaged, burned-out shells like we have seen in Libya and elsewhere. They produced chaos and called it freedom and democracy. They even helped put al-Qaeda in power in Syria!

No, you don’t have to love Maduro or his style of governance to be critical of outside attempts to oust him. In President Trump’s first term, he set his neocons loose on Venezuela and the result was the almost comical rise of the political nobody Juan Guaido.

I say “almost comical” because Trump’s neocons wasted untold millions of our dollars on the farce.

Is the Nobel Peace Prize just another deep state, soft-power tool intended to boost the US global military empire? The timing of the award going to the relatively unknown Machado is suspicious. President Trump has parked an armada of warships off the Venezuelan coast as his aides openly talk about “decapitation” strikes on the Venezuelan government. After the extrajudicial killing of some 20 civilians in his attacks on at least four boats off the Venezuelan coast, President Trump is openly bragging that no one dares launch a boat in the area.

Keep reading

Popular hair-loss pill linked to depression and suicide

A new analysis by a public health expert at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has found that finasteride, a widely used treatment for hair loss, has been associated with depression and suicide for more than twenty years. Despite these long-standing concerns, neither regulators nor the drug’s manufacturer took meaningful action. Drawing on adverse event reports and health records from several countries, the review identifies a consistent pattern of psychiatric side effects linked to the drug. Even with growing evidence, both Merck and the FDA failed to launch necessary safety investigations. The author is now urging major reforms to the way medications are approved and monitored for long-term risks.

For more than two decades, finasteride has been prescribed to millions of men seeking to slow or reverse hair loss. Behind its cosmetic appeal, however, evidence has continued to emerge suggesting serious mental health consequences, including depression, anxiety, and in some cases, suicide.

Prof. Mayer Brezis of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem argues that both the medical community and regulators have repeatedly failed to protect the public by overlooking signs of psychiatric harm associated with the drug.

His review analyzed data from eight large studies published between 2017 and 2023. The findings show a clear trend: people who used finasteride were far more likely to experience mood disorders and suicidal thoughts than those who did not. This pattern appeared consistently across various national databases, including the FDA’s adverse event system and healthcare records from Sweden, Canada, and Israel.

“The evidence is no longer anecdotal,” said Prof. Brezis, a professor emeritus of medicine and public health. “We now see consistent patterns across diverse populations. And the consequences may have been tragic.”

The report estimates that hundreds of thousands of users may have suffered from finasteride-related depression, and that hundreds — possibly more — may have died by suicide. Originally approved by the FDA in 1997 for male pattern baldness, the drug has remained popular for its perceived safety and effectiveness, particularly among younger men. Critics say, however, that its risks were downplayed or ignored.

Keep reading

Why Politicians Always Get Richer in Office (and You Don’t)

Think about your last job. Ever gotten a secret tip about the company’s next big merger right before the public announcement? Yeah, didn’t think so. For the rest of us, acting on that would land us in hot water – maybe even jail time. But inside the marble corridors and hushed committee rooms? Different story altogether.

They call it “congressional stock trading,” which sounds very official and boring. What it really means is politicians legally using information they learn because of their jobs – stuff you and I aren’t privy to – to buy or sell stocks. Government earmarks billions for a new defense project boosting a specific drone manufacturer? Funny how certain portfolios suddenly get heavier. Massive legislation passes changing healthcare subsidies? Watch how health insurance stocks move right after the vote.

It’s not telepathy. It’s not “expert analysis.” It’s being on the inside track while everyone watches the race from the nosebleeds. They write their own rules about disclosures, enforce them weakly against themselves, and pat themselves on the back for “transparency” that resembles fogged-up glass.

The Golden Parachute Club

You leave your job, you get maybe a handshake or a parting gift. Their journey is different. The moment someone announces they aren’t running again or loses an election, something fascinating happens: headhunters scramble. Suddenly, that junior Senator with average name recognition lands a seven-figure advisory role at a defense contractor. That obscure committee chair suddenly becomes a “consultant” for the very industry they supposedly regulated.

This is the “revolving door.” It spins both ways. Industry insiders walk into key government jobs to “oversee” their former colleagues. Then, politicians glide effortlessly back out into lucrative “consulting” gigs, “think tank” positions, or board seats for companies that directly benefited from legislation they championed. The currency here isn’t expertise you can find on LinkedIn; it’s relationships, favors owed, and the warm, cozy feeling they generate in corporate boardrooms. They call it “private sector experience.” We see pawns completing their mission and collecting their rewards.

Political Chameleons and Real Estate Magic

Ever tried buying property in a booming market? It’s expensive, cutthroat. Now imagine getting insider knowledge about a planned government development – a new highway extension, a federal complex, a mass transit hub destined for a forgotten corner of your district. Information like that is pure gold dust.

It’s not uncommon to see lawmakers snapping up parcels of land or properties just before major, undisclosed public projects become known. The value explodes. Sudden windfalls from “smart investments.” They disclose the gain eventually, but the how and the why? Buried under layers of complex paperwork and shrugs. Did they foresee the future? Or did they peek behind the curtain? The coincidence meter pings off the charts more often than it has any right to.

It goes beyond dirt. Think zoning changes voted on by local officials who own large chunks of real estate nearby. Think obscure amendments slipped into massive bills that funnel taxpayer dollars towards building projects conveniently adjacent to land held by those well-connected individuals. Follow the geography. The map tells its own story.

Keep reading

Another Nuclear Warning From Medvedev, This Time Over Tomahawks

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has issued a nuclear warning in the face of reports that Washington may authorize transferring US long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

President Trump’s latest remarks weighing in on the issue saw him veil his intentions in usually cryptic wording. Aboard Air Force One while traveling to the Middle East earlier Monday he had said Tomahawks are a “very offensive weapon,” noting, “honestly, Russia does not need that.”

Headlines throughout the say said he ‘might’ approve of sending them. These are missiles capable of hitting Moscow. This is also as last month Trump surprised observers by claiming that Ukraine could still ‘win’ the war and actually regain territory.

Medvedev’s chilling response on Monday spelled out that this “could end badly for everyone … most of all, for Trump himself,” according to a translation of his Telegram post.

“It’s been said a hundred times, in a manner understandable even to the star-spangled man, that it’s impossible to distinguish a nuclear Tomahawk missile from a conventional one in flight,” Medvedev, who serves as the Russian Security Council Deputy Chair, further noted.

Medvedev here is alluding to Russian strategic doctrine. In a scenario where Moscow leaders believed or suspected a nuclear payload had been launched at Russia, its military would have the right to respond in kind, with nukes.

The past couple months have seen Trump and Medvedev direct threatening messages at each other, particularly related to Trump proclaiming that he had deployed a pair of nuclear submarines somewhere near Russia.

Thankfully it has all so far been confined to social media barbs, and not any clear instance of either side’s strategic forces being placed on emergency alert.

But Medvedev’s latest message is meant as a clear ‘red line’ warning to Washington – that things could rapidly and uncontrollably escalate in Ukraine if the US sends Tomahawk missiles to use against Russia.

Keep reading