TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Adam Gillette from Accuracy Media confronts Tamara Nowitzky about DEI work at the university, alleging that the department was still engaging in DEI in defiance of state law and that only wording had been changed. Gillette asks if this is true. Nowitzky repeatedly responds, I can't comment, to questions about compliance with the law and whether the department has subverted it by altering language. Gillette presses further, presenting a video in which Nowitzky allegedly said she had to change the words because people are dumb. He asks if she said that, and whether the department is complying with the law or subverting it by changing words. Nowitzky again declines to comment, saying, I can't comment, and does not provide direct answers to whether there were thoughts or criticisms about taxpayers who oppose funding DEI, potential loss of state or federal funds, or a message to legislators who passed a law banning DEI at universities. Gillette notes that Nowitzky had commented extensively in the video, and asks for clarification about whether she misspoke or if the statements are accurate. Nowitzky responds with fragmented phrases: “I can't come,” followed by partial words from Gillette’s prompt, and then, “Most of your progressive. Of your faculty faculty,” seemingly offering insufficient, disconnected remarks. Gillette continues to seek any thoughts on whether a predominantly progressive faculty fosters a welcoming environment for students who don’t share those values, but Nowitzky again says, I can't comment. Gillette indicates that investigators spoke with several staffers and found that the psychology department and other departments had changed wording but were continuing the same DEI work. He asks Nowitzky for comments on these findings. Nowitzky states that the university is “fully compliant with House Bill four and all federal laws and policies and procedures with respect to that issue.” He acknowledges this while also noting concerns raised by Tamara Nowitzky in the psychology department about the claim that they “just changed the words because people are dumb.” In closing, Gillette mentions the recorded comments and complaints alleging that the university continued DEI work in defiance of state law, despite the purported word changes. The exchange ends with Nowitzky reiterating the university’s position of compliance and presenting the conflicting claim from a department member about altering wording, rather than altering the underlying DEI work.

Abdi, running for Minnesota House District 14A, owns Blooming Kids Child Care. The speaker highlights a long list of alleged violations at Blooming Kids, including: - No first aid kits - Unsanitary conditions - Not complying with CPR regulations - No supervision for the kids - Not operating within the terms of their license - Never submitted their DHS background study when requested - Children subjected to prohibited disciplinary actions - No furnishings, no equipment, no materials, and no supplies - No documents to show that the teachers were qualified to do the job - Repeated violations: same violations happen over and over - No immunization records for any of the children - Not enough staff The speaker notes they cannot determine how much state or federal funding Blooming Kids receives because that information requires access they don’t have. Regarding campaign fundraising, the speaker checked Abdi’s campaign donations and states he is not getting any from any day care centers. The speaker concludes by asking someone to tag Nick Shirley, suggesting he should look into this issue as well.

A USDA whistleblower revealed that the Biden administration implemented a DEI initiative offering loan forgiveness to socially disadvantaged farmers, defined as American Indian, Alaskan native, Asian, Black, African American, native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, or Latino. According to the whistleblower, this plan involved $800 million in taxpayer money and was intentionally kept quiet. White farmers, like James Dunlap, were excluded, leading to a lawsuit that successfully halted the program. A judge ruled the program unconstitutional and irreparably harmful. The Biden administration then passed the Inflation Reduction Act to aid struggling farmers, but the whistleblower alleges that information about this assistance was selectively shared only with minority farmers, with USDA workers instructed to advise them to halt loan payments. The whistleblower accuses the USDA of unethical and discriminatory practices, stating that those responsible remain in charge. The USDA did not respond to specific questions but stated they are rescinding DEI programs and prioritizing unity, equality, meritocracy, and color-blind policies. They are also reviewing the Inflation Reduction Act funding to ensure equitable distribution to all farmers.

I work in a federally grant-funded position, and at our recent department meeting, we discussed the ongoing impact of the federal funding freeze. Despite a judge blocking the freeze, the administration isn't fully compliant, leading to continued grant cancellations and freezes across various sectors. The initial day the funding portals were blocked significantly disrupted the funding schedules for numerous organizations. Furthermore, many projects are stalled due to the required removal of DEI language. This necessitates extensive rewrites of proposals that have been in progress for months. Essentially, it's a way to impede funding without an outright freeze by making the process extremely difficult.

The speaker denies inventing the state law banning DEI in higher education. Student-funded programs are not affected by changes in regulation and law. Programs are being moved to student activity fee funding to circumvent the ban. Department money cannot be used for outreach and education, but partnerships with student government are allowed. Although scholarships are taxpayer-funded, student funding is not affected by regulation. The name of DEI programs may be adjusted for logistical and political purposes. The goal is to maintain services for students, despite potential adjustments to program names.

The discussion centers on a video in which Speaker 1 acknowledges, "We can't directly fund DEI programming. So we have been looking for loopholes." He confirms, "That is me." He adds, "Part of this position would be working with some of that. We have some funds through our PBI grant that we would like to dedicate to that." He also says, "we do still have a chief diversity officer currently they're flexing out of that role because we have to for state purposes. If we want to continue to have state funding we had to discontinue the law DEIP." The other participant notes, "Just it going go like Florida when you're not having to completely go away it's just that you can't use state funds." They discuss payroll funds: "Part of that would be payroll funds." "Payroll funds are funds that are used to pay people. They come from the state, do they not?" "Most of them do. Yes." "Well, then they are state funds being used for DE."

The speaker questions whether the board of regents would be bothered to learn that university staff are allegedly circumventing the university's claim of eliminating DEI by continuing to promote it under different names.

President Trump signed executive orders eliminating DEI programs, and federal offices are canceling DEI initiatives. Some people lost their jobs because they were hired exclusively to run DEI programs. However, similar cancellations occurred during Trump's previous presidency, and people worked around them by renaming DEI activities as multicultural activities or team building. Concerns arise about writing proposals with terms like "climate change" due to the administration's disbelief in it. A proposed solution is to replace "climate change" with terms like "natural hazards" to secure funding. Despite potential funding cuts, there's hope that space-related programs will remain funded due to Trump's interest in space exploration. Earth science programs may be defunded. People are trying to come up with alternative terms for climate change.

Byron Thedford? That's me. Oh, we received a report that you were pushing DEI in defiance of the state law and seeking loopholes to get around the law. Is that true? It's not. No, sir. You've never talked about pushing loopholes to get around the law? I haven't. No. What about this video?

"We can't directly fund DEI programming, we have been looking for loopholes." "It's not. No," "So we have been looking for loopholes." "we have some funds through our PBI grant that we would like to dedicate to that." "we had to discontinue the law DEIP." "Like with Florida when you're not having to completely go away it's just that you can't use state funds." "Part of that would be payroll funds." "They come from the state. Do they not?" "Most of them do. Yes." "It's a marketing thing essentially." "It's just 90% of it from a communication standpoint you understand that." "Ours is already being funded through our PBI grant, which is a federally funded initiative." "We will catch you."

For context, USAID has been around for more than sixty years with bipartisan support, earmarks in every budget, and a workforce of about 10 to 14,000 staff, plus roughly $40,000,000,000 in procurement each year. We read Project Twenty Twenty Five and felt somewhat prepared for this administration in some ways, but not in others. Ahead of the inauguration, the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), which works in countries transitioning from authoritarian or wartime to more peaceful and structured governments, was a major player and had organized during the previous administration to respond to threats to U.S. democracy. Also notable to our group, including our gender and sexual minorities employee resource group, is that we had moved our group away from the USAID main systems into Signal chats to protect the community there. January 20, the inauguration, brought one of 200 executive orders to stop foreign assistance, creating a ninety-day pause on all funding. In addition, there were executive orders to stop DEI programming, which affected a large number of our awards immediately. In that first week, we experienced threatening emails across staff, a takeover of the DEIA, truth@opm.gov email address, which was unusual in its centralization to all government staff, and many staff under a particular hiring mechanism were immediately put on furlough or laid off. I am part of that hiring mechanism. Within that initial period, over the weekend, our senior staff, including our general counsel, were put on administrative leave. In response, we moved quickly to establish the USAID stop work order website and a Signal group, organized by a longtime implementing partner and strategic communications specialists. They moved immediately to begin gathering people, creating community, and collecting information. This is also when some of the first lawsuits began to be discussed. In the second weekend, additional Signal groups were stood up. USAID is an agency of about 10 to 14,000 people within the United States, and we have about 50,000 people who are hired into the ecosystem of awards and grants contracted by USAID. This community began gathering in Signal, especially as disinformation about USAID emerged from X (Elon Musk’s platform) and escalated attacks. In that second week after the administration, almost all USAID staff were put on administrative leave, including our ethics lawyers, our HR, and our security. DOES took over, and our buildings were closed. By February 5, we had our first large-scale protest organized, with several congressional leaders standing up with us along with agency leadership. Many developments followed, and I will discuss those next.

The speaker questions what happened to $1.1 million in federal funding received before the election. They ask if there is any reason why the elections commission cannot find out how the money was used by the municipalities that received it. The response is that open records requests have been made for that information, and the commission has the authority to investigate formal complaints. However, the commission does not have jurisdiction over private grant funding. The speaker then asks if the commission received communication from clerks about a group called CTCL offering election assistance and funding. The response is that they were not aware of the grant or clerks engaging with it, except for Green Bay. The video ends with a comment about the speed at which one speaker mentioned knowledge of CTCL.

O'Keefe Media Group reported on a secretly recorded meeting with the president of Florida Institute of Technology, John Niklow, concerning DEI and funding. Niklow allegedly changed wording to circumvent a presidential executive order and retain funding. Niklow reportedly obtained $7,000,000 in funding after a meeting with a state official, where he tweaked language related to climate change. The university president allegedly went against the deal made in that meeting. Niklow stated that changing words allows them to continue their work and avoid being targeted. Another professor, Julia Constopoulos, discussed renaming courses with Niklow. Niklow advised modifying branding or finding new funding sources. He also stated that the government isn't smart and is just searching the web for DEI courses. O'Keefe Media Group was asked to leave the premises and told to remain on the sidewalk. A cease and desist letter was sent to O'Keefe Media Group.

Federal offices are ending DEI programs due to President Trump's executive orders. State departments have already canceled DEI initiatives, but some suggest renaming DEI programs to circumvent the rules, such as using "multicultural activities" or "team building." Concerns arise about writing proposals with terms like "climate change" under the new administration, as they may not approve of such terms or provide funding. One workaround is to replace "climate change" with "natural hazards" in proposals to secure funding. While NASA may not lose funding as a whole due to Trump's interest in space, Earth science may be affected. There is a sense of depression and uncertainty, with concerns about potential funding cuts and the need to carefully adjust language in proposals.

O'Keefe Media Group reported on a secretly recorded meeting with the president of Florida Institute of Technology, John Niklow, concerning DEI and funding. Niklow allegedly discussed changing wording to circumvent a presidential executive order to retain funding, including a $7 million ask from Governor Ron DeSantis. Niklow said he tweaked language after DeSantis questioned the university being "woke." Sources claim Niklow went against the deal after the meeting, deciding to fight back. Niklow stated that changing words allows the university to continue its work. Another professor, Julia Constopoulos, head of the school of psychology, discussed renaming courses with Niklow. Niklow advised faculty to modify branding or find new funding sources. He also stated that the government isn't smart enough to find DEI courses. O'Keefe Media Group was asked to leave the premises and threatened with legal action. A cease and desist letter was sent on the eve of publishing the recording.

In the discussion, it was noted that the red states provided their data to help determine what the landscape looks like. The results highlighted several issues: 200,000 dead people or people using dead people's Social Security numbers were identified, and half a million individuals were found to be receiving more than twice what they should be getting in benefits. Additionally, there was a case of one person receiving benefits in five states. The speaker emphasized that these findings come from the red states. The speaker then contrasted this with the blue states, explaining that the blue states sued, and that there is active litigation because they do not want California and New York to turn their data over in order to help root out fraud. This contrast underscores the ongoing friction between states over sharing data to combat misuse. A specific point was also made about Minnesota, described as remarkable in the context of the broader discussion and investigations. Given these circumstances, the speaker stated that they are in court and will work really hard to ensure they are protecting the American taxpayer and the people who actually need these programs. The overarching aim conveyed is to root out fraud within the programs by leveraging data from states, despite legal challenges and opposition from some states.

We can't directly fund DEI programming, so we have been looking for loopholes. The discussion centers on circumventing state law to fund DEI. "We have been looking for loopholes." "So part of this position would be working with some of that. We have some funds through our PBI grant that we would like to dedicate to that." They say the work will continue under a different title because "we had to discontinue the law DEIP" to keep state funding. They explain "Payroll funds are funds that are used. She's used to pay people. Sure." "They come from the state. Do they not?" "Most of them do. Yes." They indicate funding can come from federal sources via "PBI grant," a federally funded initiative. They call it "a marketing thing essentially." They warn taxpayers: "We will catch you."

There was a DEI office that was immediately shut down, and that alone was a savings of around $20,000,000. And there was a slush fund there that they would use to fund people millions of dollars to go to DEI conferences and talk to other DEI people. And so we shut that down at a savings of a $150,000,000 today. DEI was such a priority that, it was baked into the incentive structure for people to advance professionally here. Some employees told me that they were put in a position where they had to spend half of their time working on DEI initiatives in order for them to be able to put it on their annual evaluation. You are more likely to get promoted if you are spending this significant amount of time on this diversity, equity, inclusion initiatives.

We've cut $4,000,000 in DEI contracts here at HUD. These contracts were intended for culture transformation, outward mindset thinking, and subscription services. This money should be used to serve the American people and ensure that our time is well spent serving those we are called to serve. DEI at HUD is dead.

Partnering to work together to offer programming and events for those certain things. We're just being more mindful about how we go about it. It's a marketing thing essentially. It's just 90 from a communication standpoint you understand that. But she'll continue doing the work just under a different title. It's just all in how you present it to get people to understand. Ours is already being funded through our PBI program, is a federally funded initiative. Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah, that's great. So, obviously federal, we're getting more open to those type of things. It's just Right.

Adam Gillette of Accuracy and Media confronted Melissa Newhouse about a report that her department was “explaining how you do DEI and defiance of state law.” Newhouse denied knowledge of that claim, noting their offices were closed when approached by the investigator. In the video that Gillette referenced, Newhouse was shown or described as saying that the buildings “now have to allow the whites and the privileged people.” Newhouse responded that this was not true. She explained that, due to the law, signs and centers that previously targeted one group were changed to be “common” rather than center-specific. She stated that “the whites are there … to help effort” and clarified that the change does not affect their curriculum. During the conversation, another speaker (Speaker 2) confirmed that the class content would still cover topics such as DEI and intersectionality, and that students would continue to learn DEI as part of the curriculum if that is what the class is about. Newhouse was asked if the video showed her voice, and she questioned whether the voice might be AI-generated. She later said, “No. I didn’t,” in response to whether the person in the video was her. Newhouse described changes to the center’s name—from Multicultural Center to Common Center—and claimed the purpose was to ensure “American white people” were represented too. She emphasized that the concept is for students to feel they belong, stating, “Belonging is very important.” She highlighted the leadership team’s diversity and noted ongoing efforts in equity, access, and education, including grants for equity. She claimed these initiatives were funded by corporate money (Apple) and had not been cut, though described as quieter and less university-sponsored. Adam Gillette pressed on whether the department was continuing DEI in defiance of state law and pressed for further clarity about the signs, centers, and curriculum. Newhouse denied that the video showed her saying that whites must be allowed; she insisted the claim was not true and suggested the visuals were AI. She reiterated that the department was still pursuing equity initiatives, with ongoing funding from corporate sources. Toward the end, Gillette stated the interview and Newhouse’s denial left an impression of a disconnect between the video and her stated position, highlighting that Newhouse had initially denied the video but then claimed the voice could be AI, leading to broader questions about authenticity.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the politicization of science and changes at the NIH. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, the NIH incorporated what Speaker 1 characterizes as political agendas rather than scientific agendas into its portfolio, with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) being the most prominent example. A chunk of NIH funding went to projects focused on achieving social objectives rather than the health mission. Every NIH employee allegedly had to write a loyalty oath to DEI principles and was evaluated on devotion to the cause. Researchers inside and outside the NIH could access funds, with outside researchers more easily securing money if they promised to conduct DEI research, according to Speaker 1. Much of that research allegedly lacked a real scientific basis and was not science. Speaker 1 provides an example of projects they worked to deprioritize: a project asking whether structural racism is the root reason why African Americans have worse hypertension outcomes. The problem, they say, is that there is no way to test the hypothesis because, if structural racism is the cause, there is no workable control group to test the idea as true. They assert that such research did not translate into better health for anybody, including minority populations. They describe these projects as political agendas that do not belong in a science agency. The stated mission is to improve the health of everybody, including minority populations, but only if projects are clearly scientific, well defined, and have a real chance of improving health. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, summarizing that there were ideological or political projects receiving NIH funding. Speaker 1 confirms and adds another practice: when a good science project ended the year with leftover funds, program officers would approach researchers with leftover money and offer a “diversity supplement”—an add-on tied to DEI that was not actual science—to obtain extra funding. This, they claim, was a waste of taxpayer money with no real health benefit. They say they have since gotten rid of all of that.

Federal offices are ending DEI programs due to President Trump's executive orders, mirroring a previous instance where DEI was rebranded as "multicultural activities" or "team building" to circumvent restrictions. State departments have already canceled DEI initiatives. Concerns arise about writing proposals using terms like "climate change" due to potential disapproval from the administration, with suggestions to replace it with "natural hazards." This strategy was previously used to secure funding. While NASA's overall funding may remain intact due to Trump's interest in space, Earth science funding is expected to decrease. There is uncertainty and concern about the future, with some expressing a lack of hope for the coming year.

I'm Representative Jamie Thompson. The Department of Education is requiring schools to remove programs promoting DEI, social emotional learning (SEL), and critical race theory (CRT) or risk losing federal funding. The deadline for removal has passed. Parents, if these programs still exist in your child's school, you can take action. Search on Google for "Department of Education letter to my colleague." This letter details the executive order and its impact, effectively notifying the school of the risk to their federal funding if they don't eliminate these programs. Stay informed and proactive about your child's education. If you have questions, contact me anytime.

Visually, what you see is that it's gone, but really nothing. Nothing really changed. Alison Bergner explains that due to bills passed in Alabama, we're not able to hire DEI staff anymore that have that title. “each college, we've got college of education, college of business, college of nursing Mhmm.” “So, technically, we are not DEI.” UNA has done a good job at, like, still keeping the resources, and some sister universities like UAH, like, even if their DEI office was a person of one, “they didn't get fired. They just got moved.” We just have had to found trickier, more niche ways to do that, and we're still serving the same students. “Not called the same thing.” The bill is “three pages long. It is super, super vague.” They pass bills that are vague “to placate their voters.” The provost was unable to meet, but she took our information and said she'd get back with us. We never heard from anyone. If you wanna take action, click in the link where you can send one message that goes directly to all of the relevant officials.