Docs show sociologist Mark Regnerus was fed talking points assuring his neutrality on marriage debate; recent actions suggest otherwise.
Â
“You are a researcher, not an advocate. You are simply reporting on what the data tells us.â€
This is the first in a long list of media-training guidelines drafted for sociologist Mark Regnerus in preparation for last year’s release of his findings of the infamous “New Family Structures Study,†a flawed, politically motivated study that suggests that children of gay parents experience more unfavorable outcomes compared to children of heterosexual, married parents.
The guidelines instructed the University of Texas at Austin associate sociology professor to focus on the science of his study and to emphasize his apolitical views. Regnerus echoed many of these talking points when his study was first released, taking pains to maintain a neutral front on the gay-marriage debate. He stated in his papers and in interviews that the study was not about gay marriage or even about gay parenting. Regnerus continues to try to appear neutral on these issues in media interviews, recently telling The New York Times’ Bill Keller that, concerning gay marriage, his study “paints the reality of people’s lives as fairly complicated.â€
But Regnerus’ more recent actions indicate many of his talking points were simply that: talking points.
Since those early days, Regnerus has signed on to a “friend of the courtâ€Â brief in both gay-marriage cases recently taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the court to uphold California’s ban on same-sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. He has blogged about his skepticism regarding the health of kids raised by gay parents, and he’s signed on to speak at a National Organization for Marriage-affiliated conference dedicated to arming college-age kids with research that opposes gay marriage.
‘Points to Avoid’
As The American Independent reported last month, the Witherspoon Institute, the conservative think tank that funded the bulk of the New Family Structures Study, pushed to have the study’s results out before “major decisions of the Supreme Court,†according to documents obtained through a public records request.
Among those documents – which are still being released in chunks – is a document titled “Mark Regnerus Media Training†(attached below) which encouraged the professor to focus on the fact that his study was a large, random, nationally representative study, unlike the majority of the existing research on gay parenting. He was told to avoid politics.
The origin of this training document, which is undated, is unknown. David Ochsner, director of public affairs at the University of Texas’ College of Liberal Arts, said he did not believe the guidelines were issued by UT, and he said Regnerus told him he could not remember where they came from. Witherspoon Institute President Luis Tellez said they were not issued by the Witherspoon Institute.
Regnerus’ “key points to make†included:
- This study does not ascribe a cause to the effects, it simply reports the data.
- For many years, gay advocates have claimed that there are no meaningful differences between children of same-sex couples and other children. This study shows this not to be true.
- Young adults raised in a same-sex household are [list key findings such as more likely to have considered suicide, etc.].
The training document also listed “points to avoid/hard questions.†Regnerus was encouraged, for example, to avoid stating his opinion of President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage.
But if asked about his own opinion on gay marriage, he was instructed to say:
This study is not about same-sex marriage. It does not attempt to assess the differences between those gay couples who have married and those who have not. It is focused on the differences between young adults raised in a same-sex household and those raised in an [sic] intact families.
Were he to be asked about whether gay couples should be able to adopt children, Regnerus was instructed to say:
Again, I am a researcher, not an advocate. Our research finds that there are a number of significant differences between young adults raised in a same-sex household and those raised in intact families where their parents are married to each to her. I have no position on adoption, gay marriage or any other similar issue.
Were he to be asked about the Witherspoon Institute’s politics, Regnerus was told to point out that liberal organizations fund academic studies, and he was instructed to emphasize that “Witherspoon had nothing to do with the study design, or with the data analyses, or interpretations, or the publication of the study,†an oft-repeated statement that has been called into question, given that a Witherspoon fellow was heavily involved in many aspects of the study and – including recommending a journal to publish it in – while also working on the study as a paid consultant employed by the University of Texas.
Some of the same language in these crafted answers appeared in the Q&A with himselfthat Regnerus posted on his blog in June 2012.
Regnerus adhered to some of these guidelines in early interviews.
“I don’t have a political axe to grind,†he said in an interview last summer with UT’s student newspaper The Daily Texan. “I know the funders are conservative. I don’t know what they make of this. … My views have never been a part of this process or affect how I go about analyzing things.â€
Aligning with gay-marriage foes
But more and more, Regnerus has waded further into the gay-marriage debate.
Perhaps most tellingly, he joined the slew of activists trying to influence Supreme Court justices with his research, by signing on to a little-noticed  “friend of the court†brief filed in both cases before the court, Hollingsworth v. Perry – challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 – and United States v. Windsor – challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act
The brief, signed by seven social-science professors in support of the legal teams defending Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, argued that “compelling evidence shows that children benefit from the unique parenting contributions of both men and women†and attacked the American Psychological Association’s position that there is “no difference†in outcomes of children raised by same-sex parents versus heterosexual parents, saying that claim is based on studies that are methodically flawed.
Arguing that “there is no dispute that a biological mother and father provide, on average, an effective and proven environment for raising children,†the brief’s authors concluded that, “The State of California and the federal government thus have a rational interest in supporting that proven parenting structure by reserving the title and status of marriage to unions comprised of a man and a woman.â€
Among the many scholarly articles referenced in this brief are both articles Regnerus wrote on the New Family Structures Study for Social Science Research and another article he co-wrote related to the influence of parent-child relationships on teens’ virginity status, published in the Journal of Family Issues in 2006.
The brief addressed the major criticisms hurled at the New Family Structures Study, among them that the study wrongly compared intact heterosexual families to families that experienced breakups and transitions but were classified as same-sex households because a child had reported that at some point his or her parent had experienced a same-sex romantic relationship. The brief’s authors challenged this criticism by suggesting that same-sex relationships are by their nature unstable.
“[T]he fact that most of the same-sex households were at some point unstable raises the question of whether stable same-sex households were genuinely undercounted in the study, or whether same-sex relationships were more short-lived,†the brief’s authors wrote. “The last scenario is possible, if not probable, given other research on the comparative volatility of lesbian relationships.â€
Along with Regnerus, the brief was signed by Simon Fraser University economics professor Douglas W. Allen, Penn State University associate sociology professor David J. Eggebeen, Brigham Young University family life professor Alan J. Hawkins, Baylor University social-sciences professor Byron R. Johnson, Ava Maria University assistant economics professor Catherine Pakuluk, and Brigham Young University assistant economics professor Joseph Price.
The sociologists’ brief was directly challenged in an amicus brief filed in late February by the American Sociological Association, Regnerus’ professional organization. In that brief, authors argued that Regnerus’ data did not support his paper’s conclusions and addressed the brief’s attacks on studies that have found no differences among outcomes of children raised by straight parents versus children raised by gay parents.
Just a few days before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the same-sex-marriage cases, Regnerus blogged about the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recent endorsement of gay marriage, writing that the few population-based studies on gay parenting – presumably including his own – “seem to foster skepticism about moving quickly or universally to deny children their right to a mom and a dad.â€
“The science on same-sex parenting remains comparatively new, unable to keep up with political and legal developments,†he wrote. “But those few population-based studies that exist — that map what’s going on across the country — seem to foster skepticism about moving quickly or universally to deny children their right to a mom and a dad. It’s not a popular position, of course. In the end, we all want children to thrive. Many organizations and scholars assert that same-sex marriage is a step toward that end, ensuring household stability. Others remain skeptical, and wonder whether this isn’t more about parents’ wishes than those of children.â€
Additionally, Regnerus is listed as one of the featured speakers at the summer’s It Takes a Family to Raise a Village conference in San Diego, sponsored by the Ruth Institute. Former George Mason University economics professor Jennifer Roback Morse founded the Ruth Institute in 2008 and was a prominent supporter of California’s gay marriage ban. Her group, which became affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage in 2009, has frequently been called out by LGBT-rights groups and bloggers for promotinganti-gay rhetoric and so-called “ex-gay†therapy.
Carlos Maza, a researcher at Equality Matters, an LGBT-focused initiative of Media Matters for America, attended last year’s It Takes a Family conference undercover andcaught on tape speakers referencing Regnerus’ study to support attacks on gay people raising children. Jenet Jacob Erickson, an assistant professor at Brigham Young University’s School of Family Life, was recorded citing the study in support of the claim that same-sex relationships are “dysfunctional and erratic and not stable.â€
Regnerus did not respond to requests for comment.
The Ruth Institute and the National Organization for Marriage are among the Witherspoon Institute’s many allied organizations – several of which share founders, board members, and resources – that have helped the New Family Structures Study fulfill its purpose: to challenge the increasingly popular belief among the mainstream social science community that kids raised by gay parents turn out fine. At least from the Witherspoon Institute’s perspective, the study’s ultimate purpose was to provide the court with evidence that banning gay marriage is in the public’s interest, based on the reasoning that heterosexual family structures are superior.
Already, the study has had this effect, at least for one justice on the Supreme Court.
Arguing before the court in defense of California’s gay-marriage ban, attorney Charles Cooper appeared to be struggling to come up with reasons why gay marriage harms or denigrates “traditional opposite-sex marriage couples.†Justice Antonin Scalia, known for his politically conservative views, interjected – bringing up kids, and sociology.
“Mr. Cooper, let me — let me give you one — one concrete thing,†Scalia said. “I don’t know why you don’t mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s - there’s considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason. … I don’t think we know the answer to that. Do you know the answer to that, whether it – whether it harms or helps the child?â€
“No, Your Honor. And there’s – there’s –†Cooper responded.
“But that’s a possible deleterious effect, isn’t it?†Scalia said. He later added, “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not, but it is certainly true that — that there’s no scientific answer to that question at this point in time.â€
Cooper did not directly answer the question, but he agreed with Scalia’s point – and argued that the plaintiffs have to prove that gay marriage will cause no harm to straight married couples. Not only that, but he said plaintiffs have to prove that “that it’s beyond debate that there will be no harm.â€
On the same day the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Proposition 8 case, gay-marriage foes gathered at the National Mall for a rally organized by the National Organization of Marriage. Organizers passed out brochures titled “What You Need to Know about Marriage: Questions & Answers Driving the Debate.†In addition to NOM, the brochure’s listed sponsors included the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, and the Heritage Foundation, all social conservative groups based in Washington, D.C.
The first “consequence[] of redefining marriage†listed in the brochure is that, “Redefining marriage would hurt children. Decades of social science – including very recent and robust studies – show that children do better when raised by a married mom and dad.â€
The endnotes cited Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study findings to support this claim.
Â
http://www.scribd.com/embeds/134277941/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll
Â
Image:Â Gay-marriage friends and foes gather in front of U.S. Supreme Court as justices hear arguments in the U.S. v. Windsor, surrounding the Defense of Marriage Act, March 27, 2013 (THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT/Sofia Resnick).
Â
This article originally appeared at The American Independent and is republished here by permission, and with deep gratitude.
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Despite public opinion polls that find the majority of Americans support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the incoming Trump administration is forging ahead with President-elect Donald Trump’s vow to begin his mass deportations of millions of people “on day one.” That will now include the green lighting of arrests of undocumented immigrants who happen to be sick in the hospital, worshipping or marrying in a church, synagogue, or mosque, or studying — or even teaching — in a school classroom, according to an NBC News exclusive report.
Since 2011, under the Obama administration, ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, has been banned from, as NBC reported, “arresting undocumented people at or near so-called sensitive locations, including houses of worship, schools and hospitals or events such as funerals, weddings and public demonstrations without approval from supervisors.”
That ban has been described as a “fundamental” principle by the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. “Adherence to this principle is one bedrock of our stature as public servants,” he noted.
As Trump positions himself to achieve his promised goal of enacting the “largest deportation operation in American history,” that ban will be rescinded to remove as many barriers as possible that stand in his way.
READ MORE: House Republican Says They Were Told ‘In Conference’ Hegseth Accusations ‘Were Anonymous’
The Biden administration had expanded the ICE policy to include “colleges or mental health institutions, and even places where religious studies were happening,” according to NBC News’ Julia Ainsley in her on-air report Wednesday. She noted that the ban will also be lifted on arrests at events, including rallies.
“So that means if you have a protest against mass deportations where you would expect undocumented immigrants to show up, that could be a place that ICE could target for arrest,” Ainsley explained.
Immigration experts oppose allowing arrests at sensitive places, believing that access to them, including by undocumented immigrants, benefits society as a whole.
“Immigration enforcement has always required a balance. In the past, Presidents of both parties have recognized that merely because it may be lawful to make arrests at hospitals and schools doesn’t mean it’s humane or wise public policy,” Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told NBC News. “We don’t want people with contagious diseases too scared to go to the hospital or children going uneducated because of poorly considered deportation policies.”
“There are churches that have historically served as sanctuaries, knowing that ICE can’t come in and arrest them there, and they do that in communities to offer a safe space for migrants,” Ainsley reported, noting that now, faith leaders and others are “worried not only because of policies like these, but because what they see as a change, a shift to the right, in the American public where people are more in favor of deportations than they were previously, and they’re worried about threats to them or to backlash if they continue to give migrant sanctuary within their spaces.”
But as Vox reported in October, Americans are more supportive of deportations only when there are no other legal avenues open to the undocumented, like a path to citizenship.
READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New
A Pew Research poll in August, Vox reported, found “that about 6 in 10 registered voters say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to ‘stay in the country legally, if certain requirements are met.’ And a similar share, 58 percent, favored ‘allowing undocumented immigrants to legally work and stay in the country if they are married to a US citizen.'”
Trump, in an NBC News “Meet the Press” interview on Sunday said he supports deporting legal U.S. citizens who are children of undocumented immigrants, in what he called an effort to not break families apart.
In September of 2021, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a memo explaining the ban on arrests in sensitive areas.
“In our pursuit of justice, including in the execution of our enforcement responsibilities, we impact people’s lives and advance our country’s well-being in the most fundamental ways. It is because of the profound impact of our work that we must consider so many different factors before we decide to act. This can make our work very difficult. It is also one of the reasons why our work is noble,” Secretary Mayorkas wrote. “When we conduct an enforcement action – whether it is an arrest, search, service of a subpoena, or other action – we need to consider many factors, including the location in which we are conducting the action and its impact on other people and broader societal interests. For example, if we take an action at an emergency shelter, it is possible that noncitizens, including children, will be hesitant to visit the shelter and receive needed food and water, urgent medical attention, or other humanitarian care.”
“To the fullest extent possible, we should not take an enforcement action in or near a location that would restrain people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities. Such a location is referred to as a ‘protected area.’ This principle is fundamental. We can accomplish our enforcement mission without denying or limiting individuals’ access to needed medical care, children access to their schools, the displaced access to food and shelter, people of faith access to their places of worship, and more. Adherence to this principle is one bedrock of our stature as public servants.”
Mayorkas offered some examples of sensitive areas where arrests should not be made. Presumably, under the Trump administration, arrests will be allowed in some or all of these locations.
They include:
“A school, such as a pre-school, primary or secondary school, vocational or trade school, or college or university.”
“A medical or mental healthcare facility, such as a hospital, doctor’s office, health clinic, vaccination or testing site, urgent care center, site that serves pregnant individuals, or community health center.”
“A place of worship or religious study, whether in a structure dedicated to activities of faith (such as a church or religious school) or a temporary facility or location where such activities are taking place.”
“A place where children gather, such as a playground, recreation center, childcare center, before- or after-school care center, foster care facility, group home for children, or school bus stop.”
“A social services establishment, such as a crisis center, domestic violence shelter, victims services center, child advocacy center, supervised visitation center, family justice center, community-based organization, facility that serves disabled persons, homeless shelter, drug or alcohol counseling and treatment facility, or food bank or pantry or other establishment distributing food or other essentials of life to people in need.”
“A place where disaster or emergency response and relief is being provided, such as along evacuation routes, where shelter or emergency supplies, food, or water are being distributed, or registration for disaster-related assistance or family reunification is underway.”
“A place where a funeral, graveside ceremony, rosary, wedding, or other religious or civil ceremonies or observances occur.”
Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, says: “Not even most ICE agents want to barge into churches or schools and carry out arrests. But the Trump admin wants people to be afraid; so they want nowhere to seem safe, no matter how draconian and brutal the operation may seem and how much backlash it may generate.”
READ MORE: ‘Pay-to-Play’: Trump Offers ‘Fully Expedited’ Approvals for $1 Billion Investments
Image via Reuters
A key Republican who sits on the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees is defending Donald Trump’s embattled nomination of former Fox News host Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense amid a flurry of allegations of sexual assault, sexual harassment, on-the-job use of alcohol and “aggressive drunkenness,” mistreatment of women — an accusation by his own mother — an affinity for Christian nationalism, and financial mismanagement of two veterans’ charities.
U.S. Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA), who has an extensive résumé in the U.S. Armed Forces and is a medical doctor, says he and his Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill were “told” that the allegations against Hegseth were “anonymous,” that Hegseth himself does not know who made the allegations, and that Hegseth is “saying to us … ‘it’s an empty allegation of an anonymous tip.’ ”
But Hegseth has admitted to the sexual encounter, although he has “maintained that their encounter was consensual, according to a statement from his lawyer,” The Washington Post has reported. In addition to the statement from his attorney, The Post also cites “other documents” it has obtained.
The sexual assault allegation involves a married woman who was attending a Republican conference with her husband and two children in 2017. She has accused Hegseth of sexually assaulting her. She reportedly had no memory of how she got to his room, where, she alleged, he prevented her from leaving.
READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New
“Her next memory was when she was on the bed or couch and ‘Hegseth was over her,’ barechested, his dog tags ‘hovering over her face,’ the [police] report said,” according to The Independent. “After ejaculating on her stomach, Hegseth ‘threw a towel at her and asked her ‘are you ok?’ ‘ the police report said.”
Hegseth denies the assault allegations but did come to a financial settlement with her, which required her to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
“A woman told police that she was sexually assaulted in 2017 by Pete Hegseth after he took her phone, blocked the door to a California hotel room and refused to let her leave, according to a detailed investigative report made public,” The Guardian reported last month. “The 22-page police report was released in response to a public records request and offers the first detailed account of what the woman alleged to have transpired – one that is at odds with Hegseth’s version of events. The report cited police interviews with the alleged victim, a nurse who treated her, a hotel staffer, another woman at the event and Hegseth.”
The details appear to be in conflict with the narrative the Trump campaign and Trump’s and Hegseth’s allies have claimed.
“A spokesperson for the Trump transition said … that the ‘report corroborates what Mr Hegseth’s attorneys have said all along: the incident was fully investigated and no charges were filed because police found the allegations to be false,'” The Guardian reported, before disputing that claim.
“The report does not say that police found the allegations were false. Police recommended the case report be forwarded to the Monterey county district attorney’s office for review.”
The Guardian also explained that a nurse, and not the alleged victim, had contacted police.
READ MORE: ‘Pay-to-Play’: Trump Offers ‘Fully Expedited’ Approvals for $1 Billion Investments
“Investigators were first alerted to the alleged assault, the report said, by a nurse who called them after a patient requested a sexual assault exam. The patient told medical personnel she believed she was assaulted five days earlier but could not remember much about what had happened. She reported something may have been slipped into her drink before ending up in the hotel room where she said the assault occurred.”
USA Today reported last month that “Hegseth’s statement to police directly conflicts with a 2017 witness account − and with recent statements by Hegseth’s attorney, who said he was visibly intoxicated on the night in question and that his alleged victim was ‘the aggressor in the encounter.'”
But on Wednesday, Congressman McCormick told C-SPAN the allegations against Hegseth were “anonymous tips.”
Hegseth, McCormick said, has done “a really good job of showing up against those accusations, which are anonymous, which nobody at Fox will say anything.”
“They’re like, ‘I don’t know what he’s talking — I don’t know what they’re talking about when they they talk about these anonymous complaints.’ He doesn’t know what’s talking about. His wife doesn’t know what’s going on.”
“We’re all, they’re all kind of like, ‘just show me who it is, and and let’s address it, because, I don’t know who it is,'” McCormick said.
“Okay,” the C-SPAN host responded, “but he paid a settlement, so he does know who it is.”
“No,” McCormick insisted, “he didn’t know who it is, and and he saying to us, ‘it’s an empty, it’s an empty allegation of an anonymous tip.’ That’s that’s not the same thing. And and so that’s that’s why I heard the same thing as you, and I had my concerns. But that’s not what we were told in conference. We were told, ‘no, these are anonymous tips. We don’t know where they came from.'”
Watch the video below or at this link.
REP. RICH McCORMICK: I don’t know what they’re talking about when they talk about these anonymous complaints. Pete Hegseth doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
C-SPAN HOST: You’re talking about the accusations of sexual assault? He paid a settlement so he does know who it is pic.twitter.com/6nVxevxu4q
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 11, 2024
READ MORE: ‘Swarm of MAGA Attacks’ Making Hegseth Confirmation Seem More Likely: Report
Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license
President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Kimberly Guilfoyle, officially his eldest son’s fiancée, as Ambassador to Greece is drawing outrage as she becomes the latest in a line of what some are likening to cronyism and nepotism appointments of Trump allies with little relevant experience for the posts. Others are noting her reported history of alleged sexual harassment, and some are questioning the timing after reports that her engagement to Donald Trump Jr. may be over.
Guilfoyle, 55, was head of a Trump 2020 campaign fundraising operation that came under fire for alleged mismanagement and “irresponsible” spending. A former Fox News host, she was “forced” out, according to The New Yorker, after a sexual harassment investigation, and “abruptly” left the right-wing network.
“Guilfoyle, however, may not be an ideal emissary,” reported Jane Mayer at The New Yorker, one month before the 2020 presidential election Trump lost, referring to her status as one of several “female stars in the Republican Party” Trump was promoting.
The former assistant who filed the sexual harassment complaint against Guilfoyle, The New Yorker reported, “was hired in 2015, just out of college, to work as an assistant for Guilfoyle and another former Fox host, Eric Bolling. According to a dozen well-informed sources familiar with her complaints, the assistant alleged that Guilfoyle, her direct supervisor, subjected her frequently to degrading, abusive, and sexually inappropriate behavior; among other things, she said that she was frequently required to work at Guilfoyle’s New York apartment while the Fox host displayed herself naked, and was shown photographs of the genitalia of men with whom Guilfoyle had had sexual relations.”
READ MORE: ‘Pay-to-Play’: Trump Offers ‘Fully Expedited’ Approvals for $1 Billion Investments
“The draft complaint also alleged that Guilfoyle spoke incessantly and luridly about her sex life, and on one occasion demanded a massage of her bare thighs; other times, she said, Guilfoyle told her to submit to a Fox employee’s demands for sexual favors, encouraged her to sleep with wealthy and powerful men, asked her to critique her naked body, demanded that she share a room with her on business trips, required her to sleep over at her apartment, and exposed herself to her, making her feel deeply uncomfortable.”
On Tuesday evening, the President-elect wrote, “I am very pleased to announce the appointment of Kimberly Guilfoyle as the United States Ambassador to Greece. For many years, Kimberly has been a close friend and ally. Her extensive experience and leadership in law, media, and politics along with her sharp intellect make her supremely qualified to represent the United States, and safeguard its interests abroad.”
Trump described her as “perfectly suited to foster strong bilateral relations with Greece, advancing our interests on issues ranging from defense cooperation to trade and economic innovation.”
Guilfoyle was praised by the President-elect’s eldest son.
“I am so proud of Kimberly. She loves America and she always has wanted to serve the country as an Ambassador. She will be an amazing leader for America First,” he wrote, not mentioning their relationship.
But The New York Times did, and extensively.
The timing of the announcement of Guilfoyle’s nomination “would have been unremarkable except for what preceded it: rumors that the president-elect’s eldest son was dating a socialite, Bettina Anderson.”
“The new relationship was seemingly documented in a series of photos published earlier on Tuesday by the British tabloid The Daily Mail, which described them as ‘incontrovertible proof the soon-to-be First Son has moved on’ with a ‘stunning ‘it girl.’ “
“The suggestions of a love triangle have been swirling for several months, including in July, at the Republican National Convention, where Ms. Anderson was spotted sitting behind Mr. Trump — and Ms. Guilfoyle — in a red dress,” The Times reports, noting that “speculation about Ms. Anderson’s closeness with the president-elect’s son intensified in September, with reports that the pair were seen kissing during a brunch not long before. (Adding a layer of intrigue were various reports that Ms. Anderson was a friend of his ex-wife, Vanessa Trump, with whom he shares five children.)”
The Times also reports that “Guilfoyle did not appear in a post-election family portrait, which did feature Vanessa Trump and their children. (Melania Trump — the once and future first lady — was also absent, though the photo did feature Elon Musk.)”
READ MORE: ‘Swarm of MAGA Attacks’ Making Hegseth Confirmation Seem More Likely: Report
Critics are blasting the nomination of Guilfoyle, likening it to nepotism, and noting Trump has already nominated other family members to his incoming administration. During his first term Trump appointed his daughter and son-in-law to top White House advisory posts.
“Nepotism concerns notwithstanding, shipping someone overseas to live in a taxpayer-funded villa is an admittedly elegant solution for getting a potential ex out of sight and out of mind. The Greek ambassador’s residence even has a pool,” The Daily Beast reports.
“Sending Guilfoyle to Greece is an amazing twofer: sort of nepotism, but also doing your son a solid by sending his loud ex-girlfriend to another continent,” snarked Professor of Public Policy Don Moynihan.
“The disgusting cronyism (arguably nepotism) continues: insurrectionist Trump family member Kimberly Guilfoyle is nominated by her future father-in-law to be Ambassador to Greece. She has no qualifications for the position,” claimed attorney and journalist Seth Abramson.
“With Charles Kushner to France, Kimberly Guilfoyle to Greece and Massad Boulos as Senior Advisor on Middle Eastern Affairs, that makes three Trump extended family members with plum government jobs,” notes Democratic strategist Max Burns.
“Ambassadors are supposed to have some connection to (or at least deep knowledge of) the country to which they are appointed. Trainwreck Kimberly Guilfoyle? Is her qualification that she once visited the Greek Islands on vacation? What a joke,” exclaimed A.J. Delgado, an attorney and political commentator who worked as a senior advisor on Trump’s 2016 campaign.
Some also noted Guilfoyle’s involvement in the January 6, 2021 “Save America” rally at the Ellipse, where she and other Trump allies spoke ahead of Donald Trump’s infamous speech declaring they would “walk to the Capitol.”
Kimberly Guilfoyle, the Goddess of the January 6 Insurrection, may become the ambassador to Greece, the birthplace of democracy! There’s a deranged irony in this. pic.twitter.com/xZYhxugwJb
— Russell Drew (@RussOnPolitics) December 11, 2024
Media Matters’ senior fellow Matthew Gertz noted that “Trump has picked 13 former Foxers to staff his next administration — so far,” naming them, including Guilfoyle.
He also adds some background on Guilfoyle’s commentary on Greek politics:
When the Greek public voted down a bailout offer from European creditors in a July 2015 referendum, Kimberly Guilfoyle called them “freeloaders” who need to “suck it up” and stop “retiring too early.” She also suggested they should be punished like a dog who pees on the rug. pic.twitter.com/shDtheGan1
— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) December 11, 2024
READ MORE: Hegseth Successfully Gaslights on Women in ‘Combat’
Image via Shutterstock
‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents
‘I Love His Charisma’: Republican Lauds ‘Man of Integrity’ Hegseth Who Will ‘Get Rid of DEI’
‘USA Is a Threat’: Canadians Slam ‘Bully’ Trump’s ‘Arrogant’ Mockery of ‘Governor Trudeau’
‘When She Is Already Governor and Senator?’: Kari Lake Mocked Over Possible Ambassador Nom
Jason Miller Tries to Spin Trump
Hegseth Successfully Gaslights on Women in ‘Combat’
‘Swarm of MAGA Attacks’ Making Hegseth Confirmation Seem More Likely: Report
‘Pay-to-Play’: Trump Offers ‘Fully Expedited’ Approvals for $1 Billion Investments
