This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute’s world-class team of scholars. 
***
I first learned of Ro Khanna in 2017. I was in college, and Khanna had just been elected to Congress. I initially took note of him due to the eerie resemblance between his life and mine. In addition to sharing a cultural background and first name, a rarity on its own, we both grew up outside Philadelphia, graduated as high school valedictorians, studied economics, and, as it would later turn out, attended the same law school. I never subscribed to narratives about “seeing people who look like you,” but I’d be lying if I said I felt no excitement at seeing someone whose story tracked mine reach such heights.
Since then, Khanna has become a leading voice in the Democratic Party and arguably the most visible Indian American elected official. But his ascent has depended, in part, on his embrace of an ideology that cannot make sense of his own life. Examining that embrace reveals not only a politician’s contradictions but also the fraught position of Indian Americans who align themselves with the contemporary Left.
<h2 class="p3"><a href="https://manhattan.institute/subscribe?utm_source=DailyWire&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=reihan">Click here for more Manhattan Institute content.</a></h2>
Reflecting on his life, Khanna has consistently sounded notes of optimism about the promise of America. “I remember Little League coaches who believed in me,” he has <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/08/26/ro-khanna-midwest-policy-democrat-00052660">said</a>. “I remember the local paper, the Bucks County Courier Times, that published my letters to the editor in a community that was 95 percent white. I grew up believing I could do anything in this country.” He has fondly <a href="https://youtu.be/UvZlSa2_kRA?si=O-zTALQYJqfDEJNw&amp;t=1119">recalled</a> his family celebrating Christmas and his street celebrating Diwali “because the neighbors were curious.”
He has <a href="https://youtu.be/WTs77VREMy0?si=bnwosk7nsDoo-WSX&amp;t=1969">recounted</a> lessons from his parents that would warm a conservative’s heart: “My parents rarely talked about my rights. They talked a lot about my responsibilities,” he said in 2024. “They said, ‘You were born in America. You won the lottery. Go make good grades.’” And perhaps most strikingly, when asked about his experience growing up Indian American, he <a href="https://youtu.be/5DKZ6qIJQ04?si=hOHyqmepwoEFqAq_&amp;t=176">replied</a>, “It was remarkably easy. . . . I’m not saying race isn’t an issue for other people. For me, it really was not a big issue.” Listening to Khanna’s recollections, one can hear the outlines of a story about America as a country where people can transcend differences of race and religion and flourish through hard work and personal responsibility.
Yet Khanna’s politics often seem strangely detached from his biography. If his life tells a story of integration, his rhetoric traffics in the language of permanent racial consciousness. For example, Khanna <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s4oTA6WfAs&amp;t=401s">frequently</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUPZnDmgOg0&amp;t=307s">expresses</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFqXg_g-CEs&amp;t=189s">alarm</a> about the white-black racial wealth gap, which he claims is “ten-to-one” and “increasing.” After the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, he rushed to defend affirmative action, <a href="https://youtu.be/VzXBxjQ93uk?si=HxITAqEkC-CRWVv9&amp;t=176">explaining</a>, “The reality is race matters. Race is consequential to people’s lives.” And more recently, Khanna criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which raised the legal threshold for race-conscious redistricting, <a href="https://youtu.be/1jXKjhS70kg?si=zrlOL7AlRc-xUim4&amp;t=1918">saying</a> that those who deny that racism still exists “have blinders on.”
Khanna’s statements are striking, not simply because they are misguided but because they are incoherent and vacuous in ways that his own life lays bare. Khanna oscillates between two extremes, seemingly feeling no need to reconcile them. When he reminisces on his past, America is a colorblind society, teeming with opportunity for people of all backgrounds. When he turns to the issues of the day, America is a racist prison, forever holding racial minorities down.
To avoid stumbling on the tension between these positions, Khanna deals in generalities capacious enough to accommodate both. For example, when he says “race matters” in defense of affirmative action, he appears to make a banal claim that <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/05/20/views-of-how-much-discrimination-racial-and-ethnic-groups-in-the-u-s-face">most voters in both parties would accept</a> while smuggling in a more controversial view: that race constitutes a significant barrier to opportunity in America.
My own views on race lie between Khanna’s narratives. Given the way <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w35140">race shapes social ties</a>, the notion that “race matters” seems indisputable. I myself have experienced feelings of isolation and alienation due to my race, and I believe race can meaningfully shape a person’s experiences and perspective. But it does not follow that race remains a pervasive barrier to opportunity, beyond what it may signal about one’s socioeconomic background. On the contrary, it is precisely in the spheres of opportunity that race should matter the least, insofar as they are governed by meritocratic norms that supersede personal affinities.
If I could speak with Khanna, I’d ask what he makes of Raj Chetty’s <a href="https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353">findings</a> that “the black-white income gap is due almost entirely to differences in rates of intergenerational mobility rather than transitory or historical factors” and that “neighborhood differences explain relatively little of the black-white intergenerational gap.” I’d ask what he makes of the <a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/59873/chapter/511595142">research</a> showing that “once social security wealth is accounted for, the racial wealth gap has narrowed over the last 30 years” and, as of 2019, stood below two-to-one. I’d ask why, if he believes “race is consequential to people’s lives” but <a href="https://youtu.be/E2tEyrBu6kc?si=XWgnR5gwStZJ741z&amp;t=3108">opposes quotas</a>, he disagrees with the decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which allows universities to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life.” And I’d ask why, given <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55119-0">evidence</a> that South Asian Americans face an even steeper penalty in college admissions than other Asian Americans, he doesn’t devote even a fraction of the time that he spends advocating preferences for other racial groups to highlighting discrimination against his own.
Khanna is the most salient example of the way Indian Americans must strain themselves to fit in with the Left today.
Indian Americans occupy a peculiar position in America’s racial landscape. They possess nearly every quality that progressives associate with racial disadvantage: brown skin, immigrant origins, ethnic names, a foreign religion, and they constitute a minuscule share of the population. Yet, by virtually every measure—whether <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-indian-american-dream-by-putting-family-and-education-first-indian-americans-rise">family stability</a>, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/fact-sheet/asian-americans-indians-in-the-u-s">household income</a>, or <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/research/charts/immigrant-sons-upward-mobility">upward mobility</a>—they enjoy extraordinary success. They confound left-wing narratives about race but, due to their small numbers, are poorly positioned to challenge them. Falling outside the white majority, excluded from the coalition of diversity, and lacking a larger constituency, Indian Americans often face a choice: they can pursue a life of assimilation and advancement within establishment institutions by accommodating themselves to the sensibilities of liberal elites, or they can preserve their own sensibilities at the expense of their success and sense of belonging.
Given the price of the second option, many Indian Americans feel compelled to choose the first, accepting the self-abnegation it demands. They learn to mute those aspects of their identity that sit uneasily with progressive orthodoxy: their accounts of upward mobility, the values their parents instilled in them, the discrimination they suffer at the hands of affirmative action. They nod along dutifully during discussions of systemic racism that their own success undermines. They internalize the shibboleths of their milieu, making <a href="https://youtu.be/K44hT-p6a3M?si=si4lfrQev18UqC5C&amp;t=476">clinical</a> <a href="https://youtu.be/Me8IwAIRJew?si=ZzREfAzJMdvPssfW&amp;t=209">assertions</a> about “black and brown people” without betraying any hesitation at the way the phrase describes them chromatically yet excludes them politically. Over time, they become estranged from themselves, conversant in a language that can articulate everyone’s stories but their own.
The notion that aligning with progressivism requires self-abnegation from Indian Americans is not merely my interpretation. Khanna himself has counseled this approach. Recounting conversations with Asian American constituents opposed to affirmative action, Khanna has <a href="https://youtu.be/VzXBxjQ93uk?si=QBAcH_VVXRyJt2Ri&amp;t=98">explained</a>, “What I say to people in my district is, many people in the Asian American community wouldn’t have been in America if it weren’t for the Civil Rights Movement . . . so we owe an enormous debt to the Civil Rights Movement.”
In other words, Khanna knows that progressive racial ideology imposes costs on Indian Americans and that no defense can be offered for this phenomenon. But rather than challenge it, he resorts to a non sequitur: Indian Americans, he implies, should feel such gratitude toward the Civil Rights Movement that they accept the violation of their own civil rights. They should regard themselves not as full and equal members of the political community, entitled to the same rights as everyone else, but as outsiders living here on sufferance, expected to keep their heads down and subordinate their rights to the interests of others.
As <a href="https://x.com/cspan/status/2041978227988615479">Khanna eyes a 2028 presidential bid</a>, his party appears united around a two-pronged strategy of foregrounding material concerns and elevating anti-incumbent sentiment. That approach may well succeed in the short term. But if Democrats want to build a durable working-class coalition, they will likely have to moderate their posture on race. (A <a href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/bvjtd_v1">recent paper</a> finds that Democratic presidential candidates could gain more support by moderating on affirmative action than on any other issue.)
The last Democrat to attempt this maneuver was Barack Obama, whose biography afforded him the latitude to voice <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2008/08/obama-shifts-affirmative-action-rhetoric-012421">conservative</a>-sounding <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6qzX_HpLOg">views</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7jepUNPBog">on</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/15cnd-obama.html">race</a> (notwithstanding <a href="https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/obama-the-disappointer">his post-presidency shift</a>). Khanna’s biography gives him the perspective to craft an Obama-esque message but not the latitude to do so. Unlike Obama, Khanna doesn’t enjoy a reservoir of credibility with any sizable constituency that he can draw on to stray from left-wing dogma; instead, he must establish his credibility by parroting that dogma. In the end, the compromises that allow Indian Americans to find a home in the Democratic Party leave them ill-equipped to reform it.
***
This is republished with permission from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. The original can be found <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/ro-khanna-progressive-politics">here</a>.
<a href="https://www.city-journal.org/person/rohit-goyal">Rohit Goyal</a> is a Law School Associate at the Manhattan Institute and a student at Yale Law School.

Former Prison Guard Tova Noel Testifies In Closed Interview With House Oversight Committee On Epstein Death

Ro Khanna Contradicts Himself On Race

admissions

Barack Obama

Indian Americans

MI x DW

Race relations

Ro Khanna

Barker Coogler

Hollywood’s Gatekeepers Lost Their Grip. Young White Directors Are Back.

Backrooms

Curry Barker

Film

Hollywood

Movies

Obsession

Ryan Coogler

Conservative activist Robby Starbuck, an American producer and director, is raising new concerns about Harley-Davidson&#8217;s commitment to abandoning diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, arguing that the iconic motorcycle maker&#8217;s new CEO has a long history of supporting such programs.
Starbuck published <a href="https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/2062167155882303663">research</a> on Wednesday examining Harley-Davidson CEO Artie Starrs, who <a href="https://investor.harley-davidson.com/news/news-details/2025/Harley-Davidson-Appoints-Artie-Starrs-as-President-and-Chief-Executive-Officer/default.aspx">took over the company in October 2025, </a>roughly a year after Harley-Davidson backed away from DEI policies following significant consumer backlash.
According to Starbuck, Starrs promoted DEI initiatives during previous leadership roles at Topgolf and Pizza Hut and later hired a chief brand officer with a similar background.
Harley-Davidson announced in 2024 that it would <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/harley-davidson-becomes-latest-company-to-back-away-from-dei-policies">scale back</a> several DEI-related initiatives after facing criticism from customers and activists. The company said at the time that it would focus on its core business and customer base.
Starbuck argues that Starrs&#8217; record raises questions about whether the company is truly moving away from those policies.
While Starrs was CEO at Topgolf from 2021 to 2025, the company maintained employee resource groups and public initiatives supporting LGBT causes. Starbuck also highlighted social media posts from Starrs&#8217; time at Pizza Hut that promoted diversity and inclusion efforts. 
Starbuck further pointed to a 2020 educational initiative launched by Pizza Hut and First Book during Starrs&#8217; leadership which<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pizza-hut-partners-with-nonprofit-to-develop-anti-racist-pedagogy-to-empower-educators?author=Jeffrey+Cawood&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Pizza+Hut+Partners+With+Nonprofit+To+Develop+%E2%80%98Anti-Racist+Pedagogy%E2%80%99+To+%E2%80%98Empower+Educators%E2%80%99"> The Daily Wire covered</a> at the time. The program included materials on race, racism, privilege, and equity in classrooms.
More recently, Starbuck criticized Starrs&#8217; decision to hire Marcus Fischer as Harley-Davidson&#8217;s chief brand officer.
Before joining Harley-Davidson, Fischer served as CEO of advertising agency Carmichael Lynch. Starbuck argued that the agency actively promoted DEI initiatives, LGBT advocacy efforts, and diversity-focused employee programs.
Starbuck reviews several of Fischer’s social media posts, revealing his support for the LGBTQ community, celebrating a diversity achievement for Hilary Clinton, and anticipating DEI conferences such as the National Diversity &amp; Leadership Conference. Fischer responded to an Instagram post asking what Carmichael Lynch was doing to “ally” with the LGBTQ community. He said the company hosted an in-office drag event, raising $12K for the Family Tree Clinic, which “specializes in LGBTQIA+ healthcare access.”
Harley-Davidson disputed suggestions that it is reviving DEI programs.
In a <a href="https://investor.harley-davidson.com/news/news-details/2026/A-Message-from-Harley-Davidson-2026-XCFq9dvqFM/default.aspx">statement</a> responding to Starbuck&#8217;s review, the company said its focus remains &#8220;getting back to the basics: building great motorcycles, strengthening our network of 500+ U.S. dealers, and supporting a workforce that is proud of the product they put on the road.&#8221;
The company also pointed to one of Starrs&#8217; first actions as CEO: restoring Harley-Davidson&#8217;s legacy Bar &amp; Shield logo.
&nbsp;

Robby Starbuck

Robby Starbuck Targets Harley-Davidson’s New CEO Over DEI Record

Black Lives Matter

carmichael

LGBTQ

Pizza Hut

Halo Studios, the developer of the beloved classic shooter game, celebrated &#8220;Pride Month&#8221; with an update to Halo on June 1. 
“Wear your #Pride all month long with the Unity armor coating, visor and emblem, available in the Halo Infinite Exchange,” Halo Studios wrote on social media, showing how gamers can change their armor skin and player icon to be adorned with rainbow colors.
Halo blocked comments on the post, silencing the reactions of their fanbase. However, quote retweets are allowed on X, and gamers didn&#8217;t hold back in roasting the company.
Many users called out Halo for being too weak to keep replies open. 
Some argued that the game&#8217;s protagonist Master Chief would disapprove of gay &#8220;Pride&#8221; and complained about woke activists seemingly infiltrating the beloved franchise to turn it into a propaganda machine.
&#8220;Dear Halo, It&#8217;s time to just start firing people who push for this to happen yearly, and then fire the artists because these suck,&#8221; one person wrote.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Wear your <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/Pride?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Pride</a> all month long with the Unity armor coating, visor and emblem, available in the Halo Infinite Exchange. <a href="https://t.co/Qu0z79tUMD">pic.twitter.com/Qu0z79tUMD</a>
— Halo (@Halo) <a href="https://x.com/Halo/status/2061510595455697006?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 1, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" async="" charset="utf-8"></script>
Some users dubbed the game &#8220;Gaylo,&#8221; using AI to <a href="https://x.com/Captain_toke/status/2061562882048086096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2061562882048086096%7Ctwgr%5E0f97ea7298e16ffe5bbb4278e425f7c790ad83b7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnotthebee.com%2Farticle%2Fhalo-locked-the-replies-to-its-gay-pride-post-but-it-forgot-about-the-quote-tweets">reimagine</a> the game with safe diversity, equity, and inclusion objectives, such as safe spaces and pronoun affirmation. Other social media users posted a GIF of the scene from &#8220;The Godfather,&#8221; where Vito Corleone laments, “Look how they massacred my boy.” 
Former Blizzard Entertainment executive Mark Kern, known by his hundreds of thousands of social media followers as &#8220;Grummz,&#8221; has been a vocal advocate against DEI in video games. 
In a recent <a href="https://x.com/Grummz/status/2061885611473342959">post</a> on X, Kern pointed out that many major gaming companies have decided to avoid celebrating Pride Month, calling 2026 a “massive June month win for gamers.&#8221; 
&#8220;A year ago [these gaming companies] would have been all skittles,&#8221; he wrote. 
Kern reminded gamers that even though Halo might still be woke, many other gaming companies are not anymore.

Experience: HALO by Xbox 360

Gamers React After Popular Shooter Game’s ‘Pride’ Update

Entertainment

Gaming

Pride

Twitter

Video Games

Woke Culture

As a clinical psychologist in the progressive business environment of New York City, I’ve spent years listening to high-functioning professionals who feel trapped by unspoken rules about what they’re “allowed” to say — or even feel — about unfair treatment at work. One story from my practice has stayed with me because it mirrors what so many men (and others) are experiencing right now, while also revealing a deeper, often-overlooked cost of these policies. The vignette below is adapted from my book, “Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly” (Skyhorse, 2025).
Mark came to therapy because he was struggling with intimacy and commitment issues in his relationships with women. During our sessions, as we explored his patterns and past disappointments, he casually mentioned — with a sardonic laugh — that he’d been passed over for promotion at his hedge fund. A human resources colleague had confidentially explained that the company’s diversity mandate meant they needed to hire people who “don’t look like you” — a straight white man. Mark had initially repressed his disappointment, shrugged it off, and convinced himself it was “fine.” He didn’t immediately see any connection between that experience and his difficulties with women until we gently revisited the story. Only when he finally narrated the full experience aloud, journaled about it, and reconnected with the anger and anxiety he had buried did the link become clear. That honest expression not only helped him explore legal options and reclaim his sense of self-efficacy at work, but it also freed him to show up more authentically in his personal life — dropping the guarded persona that had kept him from forming deeper connections with women.
Mark’s story was never abstract to me. And today, it feels prophetic.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently filed a federal lawsuit against The New York Times, alleging that the paper discriminated against a longtime white male editor with extensive experience in real estate journalism. Despite meeting every qualification for the Deputy Real Estate Editor role — including the very expertise listed in the job posting — he was excluded from final interviews. The position went instead to an external multiracial female candidate with little to no real estate experience, the lawsuit alleges. According to the EEOC, the Times’ own race- and sex-based diversity goals directly influenced the decision.
This is exactly the kind of institutional pressure I describe in my book as one of the hidden dangers of self-censorship. When talented professionals like Mark (or this New York Times editor) are told, implicitly or explicitly, that their demographic profile disqualifies them from advancement, they face eroded self-efficacy, increased vulnerability to anxiety and depression, and the intellectual deprivation that comes from not being able to speak openly about what’s happening.
The New York Times case is far from isolated. Under EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, the agency has actively encouraged white men experiencing race or sex discrimination to come forward, emphasizing that Title VII protects everyone, including supposedly privileged demographic groups. We’re seeing a wave of complaints and actions — investigations into companies like Nike, a $500,000 settlement with a Planned Parenthood affiliate over alleged discrimination against white employees, and more men finding the courage to document and challenge what they’ve quietly endured.
What these forced diversity programs often fail to acknowledge is the relational damage they inflict. By institutionalizing favoritism based on race, sex, or other demographics, they don’t just create individual distress and unfairness — they actively weaken relationships between the very groups they claim to want to place on equal footing. When high performers sense that advancement is no longer tied primarily to merit, suspicion and resentment naturally follow. Colleagues begin to wonder, “Was that promotion earned, or engineered?” Women and minorities may face quiet, valid doubts about whether their success is viewed as legitimate, while men like Mark carry unspoken grievances that erode trust and authenticity in both professional and personal interactions. The result is division, mistrust, and a subtle fracturing of the very social bonds these initiatives purport to strengthen.
In my practice and in the book, I explain why this matters far beyond politics or any single hiring decision. When we stifle honest conversation about fairness in promotions, hiring, and culture, we lose the cognitive gifts of language that help us organize chaotic thoughts, enhance problem-solving through open dialogue, build insight, and reduce anxiety by naming what’s real. Self-censorship doesn’t protect anyone — it breeds resentment, isolation, and the very groupthink that undermines healthy workplaces and relationships. It also weakens the authentic connections that are essential for emotional resilience across all lines of difference.
Mark’s breakthrough came when he stopped performing acceptance and started using the practical tools in Part Two of the book: narrating his experience, journaling, taking ownership of past self-censorship, and eventually speaking up. The healthy response to a sense of injustice is action. Taking appropriate legal steps — like filing an EEOC complaint — is not only justified but emotionally satisfying, helping restore self-efficacy and release buried resentment.
I wrote <a href="https://amzn.to/4eAOyb9">Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly</a>, because free speech isn’t just a constitutional principle; it’s a mental health imperative. Suppressing legitimate grievances about merit-based fairness doesn’t create equity — it creates exactly the psychological and cultural stagnation I see in my clients. Words are not violence — but pretending these dynamics don’t exist does cause real harm: to individuals, to organizations, and to the authentic connections that make work and life worthwhile.
If you’re a man (or anyone) who has been quietly passed over, I encourage you to do what I helped Mark do: name it, document it, and consider your options — whether that’s internal advocacy, legal consultation through the EEOC, or simply reclaiming your voice with the people you trust. The tools are in the book for a reason.
We deserve workplaces where competence speaks louder than checkboxes, and where we can talk honestly about how to get there — without sowing the very division these programs were meant to heal. That starts with being willing to say what’s true — even when it’s uncomfortable.
***
Dr. Chloe Carmichael is an IWF fellow emeritus, clinical psychologist, and author of “Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly” (Skyhorse, 2025).

Stress, migraine and motion blur with a business man in a meeting feeling frustrated, tired or overworked. Mental health, anxiety and headache with an exhausted male employee suffering from fatigue

DEI’s Hidden Cost: The Quiet Consequences Of A Flawed Policy

DW Opinion

Mental Health

Workplace culture

Movie fans are calling out what they see as inconsistencies in Christopher Nolan&#8217;s approach to his upcoming summer blockbuster “The Odyssey.” 
Several creative decisions have raised eyebrows, including the casting of Lupita Nyong&#8217;o as Helen of Troy, the inclusion of a transgender-identifying actress Elliot Page, and the addition of rapper Travis Scott to the cast.
And yet, the Academy Award-winning director drew the line at using orchestral music, saying he felt it would be historically inauthentic.
In a recent <a href="https://time.com/article/2026/05/12/christopher-nolan-odyssey-interview/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> with Time, composer Ludwig Göransson explained that Nolan told him to avoid orchestral music.
“It’s not like the orchestra existed back then,” Göransson said. “It was a challenge and also an opening to try to make something unique.” The composer instead used “35 bronze gongs of varying sizes” to create the sounds.
Nolan defended his decision to cast Scott during the same conversation, framing it as a thematic choice.
“I cast him because I wanted to nod towards the idea that this story has been handed down as oral poetry, which is analogous to rap,” Nolan told Time.  
The “Oppenheimer” director did not address the controversy surrounding Page&#8217;s casting in an as-yet-unknown role, though rumor has it she will play Achilles. 
Nolan did confirm that Nyong&#8217;o will play two roles — Helen of Troy and her sister, Clytemnestra. This has led to backlash online, as fans point out that the actress looks nothing like Helen of Troy as described in Greek mythology. “The Iliad” describes her as &#8220;white-armed&#8221; or &#8220;pale-armed,&#8221; while in “Doctor Faustus,” her face is said to be so beautiful that it “launched a thousand ships.&#8221;
Some critics are speculating that Nolan may have chosen a “diverse” cast because he’s hoping for Academy Award nominations. 
The Academy’s current “Representation and Inclusion Standards” <a href="https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards">state</a> that in order to comply, a film must feature a lead or significant supporting actors from “underrepresented racial or ethnic groups,” include at least 30% of all actors from at least two underrepresented groups, or have the narrative focus on an underrepresented group. 
Since “The Odyssey” is about men, the film would only qualify for Best Picture if it met one of the first two criteria. 
Nolan brushed off the criticism, saying he took liberties with films in the past, too.
“For ‘Interstellar,’ you’re looking at, ‘What is the best speculation of the future?’ When you’re looking at the ancient past, it’s actually the same thing. ‘What is the best speculation and how can I use that to create a world?’”
He went on, “Hopefully they’ll enjoy the film, even if they don’t agree with everything. We had a lot of scientists complain about ‘Interstellar.’ But you just don’t want people to think that you took it on frivolously.”
“The Odyssey” is scheduled to hit theaters July 17.
Matt Damon stars as Odysseus alongside an ensemble cast of A-list stars, including Tom Holland as Telemachus, Anne Hathaway as Penelope, Robert Pattinson as Antinous, and Zendaya as Athena.

Christopher Nolan

Christopher Nolan Bends The Knee To DEI In ‘The Odyssey’

Academy Awards

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
One day before the Trump administration ceased negotiations with the Iranian regime in Tehran, Department of War Secretary Pete Hegseth offered an <a href="https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/2027380303249932745">ultimatum</a> to another entity, Scouting America, in hopes of avoiding a conflict. Hegseth announced that the Pentagon was prepared to use its leverage to force what was formerly the Boy Scouts of America to remove DEI from its programming, ensure biological sex as the basis for participation in its boy and girl tracks, and institute some pro-military reforms including a new merit badge and waving fees for service members’ children. Scouting America <a href="https://x.com/StephenKentX/status/2027757646741147651/photo/1">opted</a> for peace. 
I’m an Eagle Scout and currently serve as an assistant scoutmaster and chaplain for a troop in Virginia, and I see every week where Scouts BSA has gone astray since I was a teenager. But I’m also the proud dad of a teenage girl working on her own Eagle. 
Amid all that contradiction, I couldn’t be happier about Hegseth’s strong-arm tactics.
In addition to my history with Scouts, I’m a Christian and a conservative. I get a lot of flak for being involved in Scouts BSA at all, to say nothing of having a daughter in the program. Let’s start there and then address the DEI insanity that Hegseth just helped wipe out.
“Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.” This is what Scouting has always been about. I was raised on those virtues as a Scout. When I became a “girl dad” — father to what we used to call a “tomboy” — she wanted to be in Boy Scouts from the first moment she found my BSA uniform in the bedroom closet.
Of course, that wasn’t an option until 2017 when the Boy Scouts <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/opinions/girls-boy-scouts-surbaugh-opinion/index.html">announced</a> their intent to rebrand as Scouts BSA and allow for girl-only troops. Joining back up was a no-brainer for me, and enrolling my daughter was exciting. 
I preferred that she adopt the ethics of BSA <a href="https://www.theamericanconservative.com/amy-coney-barrett-never-buy-girl-scout-cookies-again/">rather</a> than those of the Girl Scouts. It&#8217;s nothing against the Girl Scouts, but raising a tomboy in the 2010s demanded extra caution from any parent. The tidal wave of gender ideology that drowned America during the Biden years was just beginning to swell in 2018 when we were checking out Scout troops to join. We found one that had a large, well-established program just for girls — with boys in their own part of the building doing separate activities. 
Fully co-ed troops are rare. In all of my travels scouting, I have yet to see a troop that mixes boys and girls. Critics of girls in BSA tend to have an overblown conviction that they’re camping and tenting together; they are not. 
Part of this stems from a frustration over the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiGWr59P6HY">war on boyhood</a> happening across the world. I understand why <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/girling-the-boy-scouts">critics</a> of Scouting see girls&#8217; presence as crowding out space for boys to mature in peace. 
But it has to be said that girls coming aboard didn’t put BSA on life support; the decades-long sexual abuse <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/scouts-honor-netflix-trailer-debut-boy-scouts-child-sexual-abuse-cover-up-1234806388/">cover-up</a> did. Trust between Scouting and its constituency is irrevocably broken. Girls didn’t make Boy Scouts membership <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cghTbuldJM">drop</a> from 6.5 million boys in 1972 to 1 million in 2024.
BSA lacks the power to make modern boys want to play outside and forsake their screen time for weekend campouts. Two generations of Fortnite-addled boys is the larger problem. 
The girls I see in BSA are some of the best scouts that I&#8217;ve ever seen in action. They&#8217;re serious, smart, interested in its virtues, and quick to pick up the skills. This is something we’re seeing everywhere from academia to the workplace — girls mature faster and are <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/girls-outperform-boys">outperforming</a> boys. 
We need to help young men, but we can’t make them want to be Scouts. BSA is downstream of boys’ interests, not the other way around. 
Many wonder how the Pentagon has leverage over Scouts, and it’s as simple as access to secure military sites and personnel for activities such as weekend lock-ins, merit-badge retreats, and jamborees. Hegseth gave Scouting America six months to comply with <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/31/2025-02097/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity">Executive Order 14173</a>. That means protecting intimate spaces such as tenting, showers, and overnight accommodations. The wildcard has always been if a scout claimed to be trans. 
Before Hegseth’s move, it’s unclear how a troop would have been required to respond. Now, it’s unambiguous. All kids are welcome in Scouts BSA, but biology comes first if Scouts want to have a relationship with the U.S. military. 
Another Hegseth target was the Citizenship in Society merit badge, something that did not exist when I went through Boy Scouts in the early 2000s. Citizenship in Society is often called the “DEI merit badge” — because it is.
Citizenship in the World and the Nation already exist and together promote a patriotic duty to country and an understanding of globalist institutions (WHO, UNICEF, and the U.N.) and other models of government.
Rolled out in 2021 at the peak of cultural insanity following the death of George Floyd, Citizenship in Society was <a href="https://www.scouting.org/merit-badges/citizenship-in-society/">instituted</a> as a mandatory merit badge for acquiring the rank of Eagle. The program was as flowery and ostensibly non-threatening as DEI itself. Diversity, equity, and inclusion all sound nice until you interrogate what they require of organizations. 
On more than one occasion, I sat through struggle sessions of teenagers, 90% white, ranking their privilege and their experiences being discriminated against based on elements of their identity — however real or contrived. Conversation between the teens broached sexual topics, class, gender, and racial identity, and included education on fringe religious practices, including Wicca. 
The merit badge was a victimhood-mentality machine. That&#8217;s what went on in those merit badge sessions, and adults were told not to participate in the conversations or help guide them — only listen. When it came time for my daughter to take the class with an outside merit badge instructor, I was actively discouraged from attending the sessions, as it could “make the kids uncomfortable.”  
It&#8217;s a sad summary of what has gone wrong with Scouts in the last decade, which is that adults are not expected to shape and mold the youth who go through the program. Your Scoutmasters are meant to be mentors, teachers, and guides, and they are supposed to impose upon you a way of seeing the world. Because Scouting has become afraid of its own shadow as a result of the abuse <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/12/politics/boy-scouts-supreme-court-settlement">settlement</a>, there has been a retreat from adult responsibility in shaping young people to be virtuous American citizens.
If I had a magic wand and could turn back the clock for Boy Scouts, it wouldn’t be to 2021 when DEI came around, or 2017 when girls joined up. I’d go back to the 1980s when abuse cases were <a href="https://www.npr.org/2012/09/24/161689499/report-boy-scouts-concealed-abuse">starting</a> to bubble up and plead with the people in charge to make it right. It’s the wound that affected everything that has happened with BSA.
Absent the power of time travel, Scouting can endure and serve all American youth by teaching them to be responsible, courageous, discerning, and honest. Scouts BSA changed my daughter’s life for the better, same as it did for me. Secretary Hegseth brought some much-needed reinforcements to all of us working within BSA every day to try and save it for future generations. 

***
Stephen Kent is an author and the creator of <a href="https://www.geekystoics.com/">Geeky Stoics</a> on YouTube. Follow him on X <a href="https://x.com/StephenKentX">@stephenkentx</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Set of Scout badge with compass, camping mug, pine cone, kayak boat with paddle, knives. Vector. Merit patch, sticker for camping outdoor and academic activities

I’m An Eagle Scout — And For The First Time In Years, I’m Hopeful Thanks To Hegseth

Pete Hegseth

Upstream

In the last year of the Biden administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs inaugurated an effort to embed diversity, equity, and inclusion principles that would outlast their time in power.
In January 2024, the VA&#8217;s Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access Council met to discuss the results of a survey, wherein employees were asked to identify &#8220;pain points&#8221; connected to their individual identities — based on race, gender identity, and a number of other factors — in order to further embed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the agency.
The discussion centered on &#8220;identity insights&#8221; and was designed to &#8220;improve employee experience,&#8221; records obtained by the Center to Advance Security in America reveal.
Just under 300 participants identified some 5,710 &#8220;pain points&#8221; that ranged from complaints about a colleague making an &#8220;inappropriate comment&#8221; to concerns that office holiday decorations excluded certain religious preferences. Other &#8220;pain points&#8221; were centered on general workplace environment and feeling that other employees did not understand certain sensitivities connected to those identity characteristics.
The 2024 meeting, which was planned three years earlier, began as a partnership between the Veterans Experience Office&#8217;s Employee Experience Organizational Management Directorate and the Office of Resolution Management, Diversity and Inclusion to improve employee experience by addressing the &#8220;pain points&#8221; they experienced in the workplace based on their identities.
Those identities — in addition to race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity — divided participants along religious lines and listed separate categories for Baby Boomers, Generation X-ers, Millennials, and Generation Z employees as well.
Of the 281 who were interviewed, only 3% answered based on only one identifier. Nearly one-fourth (24%) selected two identities, and 39% selected three. Of the remaining participants, 21% chose four identities, 11% chose five, and 2% chose six.
Following the late January meeting, the Council recommended a series of steps designed to make the VA a more receptive place for employees to express their &#8220;whole, authentic identity.&#8221;
&#8220;The three most pressing data fields that would benefit from a redesign as having emerged from the Identity Insights project include &#8216;gender,&#8217; &#8216;sexual orientation,&#8217; and &#8216;race,&#8217; as these categories either do not exist or do not exhaustively provide inclusive options for employees to holistically and accurately self-identify,&#8221; the study advised.
Another recommendation was for a &#8220;streamlined escalation pathway&#8221; for employees to resolve identity-based complaints — particularly &#8220;in the event of mistreatment, including reporting I*DEA issues, harassment, and general concerns with conduct in the workplace.&#8221;
Those complaints, the study indicated, could stem from interactions between employees, between employees and supervisors, and even between employees and the veterans they serve — with emphasis placed on the potential for veterans to create &#8220;pain points&#8221; that impact employees.
The study also suggested there should be an avenue for dealing with &#8220;the impacts of negative customer experiences on employees such as health practitioners providing additional coverage when LGBTQ+ Veterans are denied care by a colleague&#8221; — but did not provide evidence that such denial of care was happening within the VA system.
Almost one year to the day after that meeting — on January 27, 2025 — the VA under President Donald Trump had already begun to <a href="https://news.va.gov/press-room/va-ends-dei-stops-millions-in-spending-on-dei/">root out the DEI initiatives</a> within the department.
&#8220;Under President Trump, VA is laser-focused on providing the best possible care and benefits to Veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors,&#8221; VA Director of Media Affairs Morgan Ackley explained. &#8220;We are proud to have abandoned the divisive DEI policies of the past and pivot back to VA’s core mission.&#8221;
In the year since, under Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins, the agency has <a href="https://department.va.gov/2025accomplishments/">cut $14 million</a> in spending that went solely to DEI-focused initiatives and training. It is unclear whether the recommendations made during that meeting were ever implemented, and if so, what the new administration may have in place to put a stop to the process.

Department of Veterans Affairs

How The Biden Admin Tried To Keep The VA Woke After It Left Town

How The Biden Admin Tried To Embed DEI In Dept Of Veterans Affairs On The way Out The Door

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Donald Trump

Doug Collins

Joe Biden

Veterans

The following is an edited transcript from &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1894-not-playing-games-trump-launches-investigation-into-minnesota-libs?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>.&#8221;
* * *
Michelle Obama went viral yesterday — on Martin Luther King Day of all days — for comments about shopping habits and race.
The viral description making the rounds, however, reads, &#8220;Michelle Obama says she is mindful to try to avoid white-owned brands&#8230;&#8221;
The question is whether what she actually said matches that description.
Let&#8217;s find out. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Michelle Obama says she is mindful to try to avoid white-owned brands and others also should be <a href="https://t.co/5MqY5gaxUv">pic.twitter.com/5MqY5gaxUv</a>
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) <a href="https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2013356579802767412?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @EndWokeness/X.com
At a superficial glance, just hearing her words verbatim, you’d probably have to say the viral description isn’t entirely fair. Nowhere does she explicitly say “don’t shop at white-owned brands.” Nowhere does she say “shop at black-owned brands and not white-owned brands.”
And in defense of Michelle Obama — and I don’t generally defend her — that’s not literally what she said.
She said that if she sees a black-owned brand and she likes their stuff, she’ll choose that brand. But she stops herself. She doesn’t say, “and I won’t buy from anyone else.” She doesn’t say, “I only do it because it’s black-owned.”
But here’s the problem: she injects race into the decision. She’s saying, “If I like their stuff, and if it’s black-owned, then I especially want to buy it.” And when she says, “If you have the money to buy Chanel, you have the money to buy everybody,” she very carefully stops short of finishing the sentence. She doesn’t say “black-owned brands.” She says “everybody.”
What she’s doing is trying to privilege the black-owned brand while avoiding the explicit consequence of that choice. She wants to be a racial identitarian when it comes to the positive act of buying — of supporting a business — but she doesn’t want to be a racial identitarian when it comes to the negative act of not shopping somewhere else.
She never says, “Don’t shop at white brands.” Instead, she says you need to shop at black brands, and everybody needs to shop at black brands — but maybe not less at white brands.
It’s a kind of gobbledygook. And that’s why, ultimately, I think the viral description is basically fair, even if it’s not perfectly precise.
It’s like the IQ bell curve meme. At one end, people say she told people not to shop at white stores. In the middle, it’s “she said to shop at black stores but also shop at white stores.” And at the other end, what she’s really saying is: shop less at white stores. Her minor premise is wrong. She says if you have the money to buy Chanel, you have the money to buy everybody.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1894-not-playing-games-trump-launches-investigation-into-minnesota-libs?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h3>
That’s simply not true. Money is a finite resource. Just because you can afford one expensive brand doesn’t mean you have infinite money. And even if you did have infinite money, you have finite closet space. You have a finite number of dresses you’ll wear. A finite number of days in the week. Where are you going to wear all these clothes?
This is the core problem with diversity ideology. If you privilege one thing, you necessarily disadvantage another. 
This is exactly the problem with affirmative action. Everyone says, “Oh, it’s great, we should help out black people.” And yes, for the vast majority of Americans, that sounds good. Who doesn’t want to help?
But affirmative action in practice means something very concrete. There are a finite number of spots at a university. A finite number of jobs. When you give an advantage to black people simply for being black, you are necessarily disadvantageous to someone else — often white people, or Asian people in the case of college admissions. There is discrimination happening. There is an injustice that comes with that, too.
The same logic applies here. When you say, “I’m going to shop at the black brand,” you are necessarily saying that, at the margin — the last dress that fits in your closet — you are not going to shop at the white brand. You are choosing not to go into that shop, not because you dislike the dress, but because of the race of the person who owns it.
That is discrimination on the basis of race. That’s what Michelle Obama is saying — without saying it. She doesn’t want to go all the way, but there is no other conclusion you can reach from her premises.
This ties directly into why people don’t really talk about Martin Luther King Jr. the same way anymore. Part of it is that the modern Left rejects him because he was too conciliatory and too egalitarian. But the other reason is that the practical politics don’t match the rhetoric.
Dr. King famously said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” 
And yet his successors say that in order to achieve that dream, we need affirmative action, DEI, and diversity ideology. Which, in practice, means judging people — especially white people — by the color of their skin.
Taken to its extreme, it means not shopping at white-owned businesses. And even if you agree with MLK’s premise, you are completely undermining it with these practical consequences.
So no, I don’t begrudge Michelle Obama for shopping at black-owned businesses. That’s fine. But if you’re going to say it, say it with your whole heart. Finish the sentence.
Tell people explicitly: shop at black businesses. Don’t shop at white businesses. Define what counts as ownership — 50% plus one ownership? Board seats? Stakeholders? I don’t know. But say it clearly.
And if you’re not willing to say that, then just buy the dress you like.

2025 Martha’s Vineyard African American Film Festival

Michelle Obama And The Logic Of ‘Mindful’ Shopping

Affirmative Action

Blacks

Business

Clothes

Corporations

Fashion

Michael Knowles

Michelle Obama

Opinion

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Monday declared over 100 laws and policies with &#8220;DEI frameworks&#8221; unconstitutional, The Daily Wire can first report, stating that these laws were being used to illegally discriminate in both the public and private sectors.
“This action to dismantle DEI in Texas helps fulfill the vision articulated by Martin Luther King, Jr. when he dreamed that his children would one day live in a nation where they were judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” Paxton said in a statement.
“It’s imperative that all private-sector employers, schools, and state and local government entities—based on this legal opinion—immediately abolish any DEI, affirmative action, or unconstitutional discrimination programs under their authority. We must return to the basic principles of equal opportunity for all,” Paxton continued.
The opinion specifically notes potential issues in programs like the Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) and the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) efforts.
The HUB program was meant to help “small, minority- and women-owned businesses&#8221; in the process of obtaining state government contracts, according to the Texas Department of Transportation <a href="https://www.txdot.gov/business/disadvantaged-small-business-enterprise/hub.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">website</a>. In October, acting Texas Comptroller Kelly Hancock announced that new certifications for HUB would be stopped, posting to X that “Businesses deserve a level playing field where government contracts are earned by performance and best value — not race or sex quotas.”
Paxton noted that the opinion would not impact veterans who utilize the program, but that the sex- and race-based elements of the program run contrary to the state&#8217;s Equal Rights Amendment and the 14th Amendment&#8217;s Equal Protection Clause.
Meanwhile, the opinion rails against DBE mandates for “consideration of race and sex for seats on state boards, commissions, and committees,” a press release stated.
The attorney general also issued a warning to the private sector about potential “legal liability” if DEI practices are in place at Texas businesses, adding that “America is waking up to the egregious unfairness of DEI policies.”
Paxton also points to the Supreme Court&#8217;s 2023 opinion that ended affirmative action in higher education. The attorney general&#8217;s opinion notes that the practice is unconstitutional in Texas far beyond education, and said that his office will take action against governmental entities, including schools, that use DEI or affirmative action as a means of “unlawful discrimination&#8221; and &#8220;the erosion of merit-based decision-making.&#8221;
The Trump administration has made sweeping reversals to DEI-style policies at the federal level, ranging from the State Department to the Federal Aviation Administration. Many companies still have DEI practices in place, though others have begun rolling them back.

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Expedited Challenges Over Texas Abortion Ban

Attorney General Ken Paxton Dismantles DEI In Texas With Sweeping Legal Opinion

diversity equity inclusion

Ken Paxton

Texas

Two Senate Republicans are standing in the way of efforts to eliminate a major DEI program that gives no-bid federal contracts to &#8220;socially disadvantaged&#8221; groups, a letter obtained by The Daily Wire shows.
Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan wrote to agencies saying that a race-based program that removes competition for federal contracts for racial minorities &#8220;has reflected conservative, market-based principles by empowering small businesses to compete, grow, and succeed.&#8221; They said a Republican request that agencies review past contracts for &#8220;potential fraud&#8221; was &#8220;premature&#8221; and &#8220;unsupported by established facts.&#8221;
The Trump administration&#8217;s Small Business Administration moved to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/feds-crack-down-on-minority-contracting-schemes-d-c-s-worst-kept-secret" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rein in</a> the federal minority contracting program, known as 8(a), after a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/usaid-official-three-contractors-plead-guilty-to-half-billion-dollar-bribery-scheme" target="_blank" rel="noopener">black businessman bribed</a> a USAID official for half a billion dollars in contracts — a bribe the official could make good on only because contracts to minorities can be handed out at will instead of based on a showing of best value.
In October, James O&#8217;Keefe&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1981042870460252398" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Citizen Journalism Foundation</a> captured officials from a white-led, but ostensibly Native American contractor, bragging about how they got a $100 million contract using minority preference and simply found someone else to do the actual work for a small portion of that. Follow-up reporting featured members of the Native American tribe bemoaning that outsiders were abusing the tribe&#8217;s name to <a href="https://x.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/1988770902243176767?s=42" target="_blank" rel="noopener">enrich</a> themselves, while tribe members lived in poverty.
Alaska Natives get even more preferential treatment than black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans, allowing them to run multibillion-dollar defense contractor companies while getting benefits initially designed for small, disadvantaged firms.
In December, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, which has jurisdiction over the program, wrote to agencies <a href="https://www.ernst.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/12082025sba8aprogramfinalletters.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asking them</a> to &#8220;immediately pause all 8(a) sole-source contracting&#8221; and &#8220;examine all 8(a) set-aside contracts awarded by your agency since FY 20 for any violation of laws and regulations,&#8221; noting that the Biden administration raised the goal for minority contracts to 15%.
For years, inquiries have flagged fraud and abuse in such arrangements, but Alaska Republicans have used their disproportionate power in the Senate to make the topic off-limits. The now-deceased Ted Stevens was an Alaska Republican who chaired the Senate&#8217;s Appropriations Committee for years, and Murkowski now sits on the committee.
Before the DEI craze captured Democrats, it wasn&#8217;t partisan to point out waste and abuse. In 2010, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) found abuse similar to what was highlighted by O&#8217;Keefe. But Murkowski &#8220;immediately sprung into action, lodging objections&#8221; to McCaskill&#8217;s effort to reform the program. McCaskill <a href="https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/article/mccaskill-retreats-attack-on-tribal-contracting" target="_blank" rel="noopener">folded</a>, but said, “Reform in this area is going to happen. It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when.&#8221;
In the time since, little has changed. In 2011, The Washington Post reported that a D.C. lawyer named Paralee White had used the Alaska program to land more than <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dc-insiders-can-reap-fortunes-from-federal-programs-for-small-businesses/2011/02/09/AB1NRJS_story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$500 million</a> in military contracts and pay her family members lavish salaries. The Post noted, &#8220;Significantly for White, the subsidiaries set up by the corporations to receive contracts did not have to operate in Alaska or even be run by natives. They just had to be 51 percent owned by Alaska Natives, and they could hire nonnative subcontractors to do much of the work.&#8221;
In <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/09/30/bethesda-consultant-made-millions-with-alaska-firm/e9187e20-cc34-11df-8eee-2e1a26a3708e/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">another case</a>, a Bethesda, Maryland, man was paid $15 million to run an Alaskan government contractor for three years, while Alaska Natives received a total of $682,000 in dividends in 2009, or $305 each. The company won a contract to make military uniforms, which it manufactured in Puerto Rico instead of Alaska.
Sullivan and Murkowski did not publicize their letters to federal agencies, which goes against Republican orthodoxy when it comes to DEI and fraud and waste. A spokesman for Murkowski, Joseph Plesha, did not respond when The Daily Wire asked about the letter.
The inquiry asked: &#8220;Do you think the SBA and agencies have done a sufficient job rooting out abuse? If not, what are some examples that you&#8217;ve uncovered through your oversight? Do you support 8(a) for all minorities or only Alaskan natives?&#8221;
It also asked whether the type of Alaska Native Corporation that Murkowski holds up as a success includes Bowhead, virtually all of whose <a href="https://www.bowhead.com/executive-team/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">executives are white men</a>. Bowhead is technically an arm of an Alaskan tribe, but it is headquartered in the D.C. suburbs, and its family of high-tech defense contractors looks and operates like Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin — but without having to compete with them on price.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1026861" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/bowhead-scaled.jpg" alt="" width="2560" height="1535" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/bowhead-scaled.jpg 2560w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/bowhead-300x180.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/bowhead-961x576.jpg 961w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/bowhead-768x460.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/bowhead-1536x921.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/bowhead-2048x1228.jpg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /></div>
A spokeswoman for Sen. Sullivan, Amanda Coyne, also did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry requesting data showing that such firms were actually staffed by Alaska Natives.
The letter said the 8(a) program &#8220;reduces administrative burden, shortens acquisition timelines, and avoids the delays and litigation risks that often accompany large-scale procurements. Further, as two Senators who care about the readiness of our military, we consistently hear from top Pentagon officials that the 8(a) Program provides flexibility and timeliness in procuring weapons systems that strengthen our country.&#8221;
The reason that some government officials like using 8(a) contracting is that they do not have to bother with competing for the work, a process designed to get the highest quality and lowest cost. Instead, they can simply choose who they want to give it to. At times, that includes the implicit understanding that the supposedly disadvantaged firm will subcontract much of the work to a traditional firm.
The 8(a) program is also facing court challenges, particularly after recent Supreme Court decisions made it likely that elements of it are unconstitutional. Multiple injunctions have been put in place by judges, and a lawsuit by lawyers from the Center for Individual Rights and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty has recently been filed on behalf of white people who were left out in the cold.
Dan Lennington, the director of the Wisconsin group&#8217;s Equality Under the Law Project, told The Daily Wire, &#8220;There is simply no question that the 8(a) program has been the source of significant waste, fraud, and abuse. The program was designed for &#8216;economically disadvantaged&#8217; small business owners, yet our clients have reported that these limits are not enforced and easily evaded, meaning that high net-worth individuals often scoop up preferences and sole-source contracts.&#8221;
&#8220;Moreover, the Section 8(a) program has been tainted with unconstitutional racial preferences, including racial preferences for &#8216;Alaska Natives,&#8217; which Senators Murkowski and Sullivan undoubtedly support. Federal law defines this category based on &#8216;blood,&#8217; &#8216;bloodlines,&#8217; and &#8216;minimum blood quantum,&#8217; all of which constitute unconstitutional racial categorizations. SBA should vigorously enforce the President&#8217;s Executive Orders, which require all agencies to eliminate racial preferences, including those remaining in Section 8(a),&#8221; he continued.
Murkowski and Sullivan&#8217;s letter read:
<blockquote>Fraud, waste, and abuse have no place in federal programs, and any participant who violates the law should be held fully accountable. However, we write to express serious concern with recent, unsubstantiated attacks on the Small Business Administration&#8217;s (SBA) 8(a) Business Development Program and the request that federal agencies halt all 8(a) sole-source awards absent verified findings of wrongdoing.
On December 8, 2025, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship sent letters to 22 federal agencies urging a pause on future 8(a) sole-source awards and a review of prior awards based on allegations of &#8220;potential fraud.&#8221; These requests are premature, unsupported by established facts, and risk significant harm to federal missions and thousands of compliant small businesses that lawfully participate in this program. Broad, sensationalized allegations leveled before the completion of any investigation amount to a presumption of guilt and undermine fundamental principles of due process.
For more than 40 years, the 8(a) Program, authorized under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, has been one of the federal government&#8217;s most effective tools for promoting entrepreneurship and economic mobility for disadvantaged communities. Participating firms routinely deliver high-quality, specialized services, achieve strong Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) performance ratings, and provide agencies with cost-effective, timely procurement options. The program reduces administrative burden, shortens acquisition timelines, and avoids the delays and litigation risks that often accompany large-scale procurements. Further, as two Senators who care about the readiness of our military, we consistently hear from top Pentagon officials that the 8(a) Program provides flexibility and timeliness in procuring weapons systems that strengthen our country.
We fully support targeted, evidence-based oversight that identifies and removes bad actors. We cannot support sweeping actions that jeopardize thousands of legitimate businesses, many of which perform mission-critical work for your agency and others across the federal government.
Accordingly, we urge you to continue utilizing the 8(a) Program consistent with existing law and regulation, while allowing any appropriate reviews to proceed in an orderly and fact-driven manner. For decades, this program has reflected conservative, market-based principles by empowering small businesses to compete, grow, and succeed, rather than expanding government dependence on bureaucracy.</blockquote>
Editor&#8217;s note: Luke Rosiak <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/luke-rosiak-testifies-at-us-senate-hearing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">testified</a> to the Senate Committee on Small Business about 8(a) contract abuse.

Sens. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

Alaska Republicans Secretly Working To Protect Fraud-Plagued DEI Program

Alaska

General

Lisa Murkowski

Minority Contracting

U.S.

U.S. Senate

While Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer kept the federal government shut down, the radical Left was hard at work in California crusading against the patriots who feed and clothe our country.
The latest episode in Governor Gavin Newsom’s war against agriculture comes in the form of redistributing agricultural land in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
The California Agricultural Land Equity Task Force is thinking up clever ways to steal land from hardworking farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers to pay reparations to tribes and other minorities in the form of land. Even more troubling, they doubtless plan to use this scheme as a template for future use at the national level.
We won’t allow it.
That’s why on December 11, I sent a <a href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-letter-gov-newsom-ca-ag-land-equity-121125.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> to Governor Newsom outlining the substantial constitutional issues with the Task Force’s <a href="https://sgc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Full-Report-ADA-FINAL-CLEAN.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">draft report</a>.
In that letter, I note that “the right to own private property and our nation’s agricultural heritage are an inseparable cornerstone of the American dream and ingrained in the very fabric of our nation. The pursuit of a noble lifestyle in agriculture should transcend the pernicious identity-based politics that only serves to drive division.”
I am demanding that Governor Newsom reject and abandon any attempt to pursue the illegal recommendations in the Task Force’s report. It is unconscionable that hardworking farmers are being demeaned and shut out of opportunities simply because they don’t meet the state’s definition of “equity.”
No matter your family history, culture, or skin color, you should have equal access to government programs that can help you pursue the most American way of life: agriculture.
In the report, California proposes incentivizing the transfer of both public and private agricultural lands exclusively to tribal nations, African Americans who are the descendants of slaves, and certain other minorities.
But the blatant disregard for justice doesn’t stop there.
The report also recommends the development of local ordinances to restrict citizens from purchasing land unless they are part of a certain minority group.
This policy would encourage the state and nonprofits to outbid legacy farms at auction and then only offer agricultural leases back to minority farmers after the purchase. Tax credits, debt forgiveness, special funding, and even priority in important farm conservation programs would only be allowed to benefit a few select minority demographics.
In a move we’ve come to expect from the radical left, the report even encourages the adoption of laws requiring “climate”-related agricultural practices for the new minority landowners.
Some might be tempted to dismiss this report as a pipe dream. That would be a mistake.
Newsom and his cronies are reckless fools, but they mean business. This report is thought out and comprehensive.
California agriculture is an economic powerhouse. On its own, it ranks as the world’s fifth-largest supplier of food. That’s why what happens to agriculture in California is vitally important for the rest of the country.
Make no mistake, the proposal being discussed right now would not only hurt farmers in California, but every American.
While the Trump administration is working hard to reduce the price of food across the nation, Gavin Newsom is concocting new ways to drive up food inflation.
This radical DEI agenda needs to be stopped in its tracks, immediately. We are committed to fighting for all farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers — no matter their ZIP code.
Brooke Rollins is the 33rd Secretary of Agriculture.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu

DEI