Last December, I released a FOIA'd email to the world, showing that Francis Collins ordered Anthony Fauci to wage a "devastating take down" on the Great Barrington Declaration.
A year later, Fauci is apparently lying under oath, denying he ever did this
The email records reveal a different story. Fauci immediately responded to Collins by circulating an opinion article from Wired Magazine that - absurdly - claimed the lockdowns were behind us.
Fauci then circulated another opinion column from the Nation magazine by radical lockdowner Gregg Gonsalves, attacking the GBD.
Collins then repeated these anti-GBD talking points to the Washington Post, declaring that the proposal was "fringe" and "dangerous."
Fauci responded to Collins the same day, saying "what you said is entirely correct."
At some point around October 14, 2020, Fauci and Collins had a long email exchange about the Great Barrington Declaration. We still don't know what's in it because the NIH completely redacted the multi-page email.
We know that later that day, Fauci sent another email to Collins and his staff likening the GBD to "AIDS denialism"
Two days later on October 16, 2020, Fauci was in full panic mode. He sent Deborah Birx an email about how he had "come out very strongly publicly against" the GBD, and warning her that Scott Atlas would likely push for it at the Covid task force meeting later that week.
Fauci had to miss that task force meeting so he was setting Birx up to oppose the GBD if it came up. Note that significant parts of this email are also redacted, so we don't know what else they said. Birx responded though that the message was received.
Atlas did not attend the meeting as Fauci feared he would, so the proposal to discuss the GBD never came up. Fauci & Collins bantered about being relieved over this in their next few emails.
A few days later, Fauci asked his assistant Greg Folkers to round up a bunch of media op-eds attacking the GBD. Folkers delivered these to him on November 2, 2020.
The FOIA records, unfortunately, stop there, and the NIH has not responded to followup requests for additional public records about this from Fauci in almost a year. That will likely change soon though when the ongoing Missouri lawsuit gets to the discovery phase.
For a full summary of these events and links to all of the original FOIA'd emails, see here:
"The rise in anti-Semitism on the right is attributable to a handful of individuals whom Hazony is too cowardly and embarrassed to condemn. Like a vengeful alcoholic at an intervention, he is lashing out and blaming everyone but himself for the wreckage he helped create" commentary.org/articles/james…
Also note: the picture of Hazony in the banner image is from him speaking at an event cosponsored by MCC, aka Viktor Orban University.
I first encountered Hazony ca. 2018 at a dinner sponsored by ISI where he gave a talk on his book. His lecture was vapid nationalist slop that made multiple egregiously erroneous claims about American history and political philosophy.
I remember sitting there shocked that anyone could find this guy even remotely convincing - not because the message was bad (and it was) but because his arguments betrayed utter incompetence with the subject matter. I was not the only one who thought so either. Most of the others at my table were rolling their eyes at him, and whispering about his mistakes in the speech.
When Q&A opened up, I started to raise my hand to push back on some of his claims. George Gilder, who was sitting right behind me, raised his hand at the same time. They called on Gilder, and he proceeded to make some of the same criticisms of Hazony that were going around my table. Hazony's answer to the challenge amounted to meandering babble and evasion.
I didn't think much else about Hazony after that, until he resurfaced as the leader of this NatCon thing. I was not at all surprised when I read the speaker list, and saw it was an eclectic mix of bigots, cranks, and conspiracy theorists. More surprising though is that Hazony has been pushing the same bigots for the last 6+ years now, all the while feigning "shock" that they spew bigotry whenever it spills into public view...and then turning around the next day and inviting the very same bigots back to his conferences.
Earlier today, President Trump made a last ditch attempt to salvage his tariffs before the Supreme Court by claiming that it would be impossible to refund them.
There's a problem. Trump's own DOJ has been admitting in court filings for months that refunds are possible.🧵
Here's the Trump DOJ's initial response on April 29, 2025, admitting that if they lost an unappealable decision, the government would refund the illegal tariffs with interest.
On May 28, 2025 the Trump DOJ filed a motion for a stay of the US Court of International Trade's ruling against them, arguing that the tariffs could be refunded with interest.
The court granted their stay based on this promise.
10 things to listen for in tomorrow's SCOTUS hearing on tariffs:
1. Will the DOJ try to argue that tariffs are not taxes, but regulatory "surcharges" under the international commerce clause out of the hope that this gives them more leeway under delegation of congressional power?
2. Will Roberts accept a "tariffs are not taxes, they're regulations" argument from Trump in light of his (in)famous Obamacare tax argument from Sebelius?
3. Will Kagan clarify her position on when the nondelegation doctrine applies by suggesting that tariffs fit that constitutional test, whereas other cases where she rejected it did not?
In 2016 the @AAUP launched a campaign urging colleges to ban conservative students from recording professors in the classroom.
I FOIA'd emails of Hank Reichman, their VP at the time & author of the policy. It revealed he was working with a Marxist group to secretly record free-market economics faculty at a conference he disliked.
The AAUP has always been a coven of left wing partisan hacks and hypocrites.
@AAUP For those who asked, here is the policy recommendation adopted by Reichman's committee.
@AAUP There are several FOIA'd emails, but here I'll share some of the main documents. Here is the Marxist student group coordinating behind the scenes with Reichman to promote their recordings of economics professors at the conference.
A bibliometric tour of Carl Schmitt, attesting that his alleged "importance" is a very recent phenomenon of only the last ~30 years. 🧵
First we start with English Ngram, which shows Schmitt had a negligible amount of citations until the 1990s.
What about other language groups though? Here's French, where Schmitt had a slightly earlier rise no-thanks to Derrida and a few other postmodernist oddballs started engaging with him. But also, a very recent phenomenon that's almost entirely in the 1990s-2000s...and then drops.
Spanish is interesting because it has a slow, steady uptake - albeit at very modest citation levels - in the 1930s-70s. But it too only really spikes in the 1990s-200s, and then declines a bit like French.