Minnesota Governor Tim Walz didn’t mince words when asked what the motivation was for the new movement among MAGA Republicans to convince President Donald Trump to pardon Derek Chauvin, the former police officer who killed George Floyd in 2020.

“Racism. It’s racist. OK? That’s what I believe,” Walz said in an interview with Semafor published Wednesday.

The calls to pardon Chauvin started with an online petition earlier this month, according to The Independent. The pardon push picked up steam this week when conservative commentator Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire launched a webseries, “The Case of Derek Chauvin.” Shapiro claims the officer was convicted on “extraordinarily scanty evidence,” saying Floyd did not die from having Chauvin’s knee on his neck for over nine minutes, but rather from drugs in Floyd’s system and heart disease.

READ MORE: Derek Chauvin Sentenced to 22-and-a-Half Years for Murder of George Floyd – Less Than Maximum Possible Sentence

Walz, however, disputes this interpretation of events.

“This was a man who murdered George Floyd on TV,” Walz said, adding that a pardon “would undermine the faith in the system.”

The White House, however, has denied that a Chauvin pardon is in Trump’s plans. Earlier this month, Trump said he hadn’t even heard about a push to pardon Floyd’s killer, and on Wednesday, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt repeated that a pardon is “not something he’s considering at this time,” according to The Grio.

However, some commentators, like The Hill’s Juan Williams are skeptical, pointing out that Trump has pardoned two police officers convicted of killing a Black man in the first days of his second term.

In 2020, after the killing, Trump condemned Chauvin.

“We all saw what we saw. It’s hard to conceive anything other than what we did see. It should have never happened,” Trump said.

If Trump were to pardon Chauvin, it would be largely moot. Presidents can only pardon those convicted on federal charges. Chauvin was convicted on both federal and Minnesota state charges. In the event Trump cleared the federal charges, the main thing that would happen is that Chauvin would be moved from the federal prison in Big Spring, Texas to a Minnesota state prison.

Minnesota sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years for murder; on the federal level, he was sentenced to 21 years for violating Floyd’s civil rights. Barring a federal pardon, the two sentences are running concurrently, not consecutively.

Image via Shutterstock

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warned that DEI policies could violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That same day, it was revealed that President Donald Trump signed an executive order that could allow federal contractors to have segregated facilities.

DEI, or “diversity, equity and inclusion,” is the current right-wing buzzword referring to antidiscrimination policies in the workplace and government. The Justice Department and EEOC put out two documents on Wednesday “educating the public about unlawful discrimination” stemming from DEI policies. The DOJ says that these policies can violate Title VII of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“Far too many employers defend certain types of race or sex preferences as good, provided they are motivated by business interests in ‘diversity, equity, or inclusion.’ But no matter an employer’s motive, there is no ‘good,’ or even acceptable, race or sex discrimination,” EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas said in a statement. “In the words of Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurrence in Students for Fair Admissions, ‘two discriminatory wrongs cannot make a right.’”

READ MORE: WWII B-29 Bomber Enola Gay Falls Victim to Pentagon’s Sweeping DEI Purge

The 1964 Civil Rights Act made it illegal for a company to refuse to hire a qualified candidate based on their race, sex or other protected characteristics. Though the Act was intended to help qualified women and non-white people find jobs, many on the right have claimed that white men have been blocked from getting work as a result.

The documents released by the EEOC echo this statement, claiming that “DEI-related discrimination” may include “unlawfully using quotas or otherwise ‘balancing’ a workforce by race, sex, or other protected traits.”

The same day that the DOJ and EEOC invoked the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was reported that Trump issued an executive order last month that undermines that Act. Trump’s order overturned an EO by President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1965 that blocked federal contractors from having “segregated facilities,” like dining areas, according to The Independent. The move is primarily symbolic, the paper reported, as state and federal laws—like the 1964 Civil Rights Act—still ban segregation.

Trump fight against DEI policies started shortly after his inauguration. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order called “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government Programs and Preferencing.” Since Trump’s order, government agencies stripped references to women, Black and queer people from the historical sections of their websites. This includes the Pentagon removing former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, and the Tuskegee Airmen from the list of notable graves at Arlington National Cemetery, according to the San Antonio Express-News.

Image via Shutterstock

The lone justice to dissent called the Texas Supreme Court ruling to uphold the ban on gender-affirming care for minors “cruel” and “unconstitutional” Friday.

The Texas Supreme Court, currently made up of all Republican justices, decided 8-1 to uphold a ban on providing gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers, to transgender people under the age of 18. The Court said that it did “not attempt to identify the most appropriate treatment for a child suffering from gender dysphoria,” claiming it to be a “complicated question” for doctors and legislators.

The Court ruled that even though “fit parents have a fundamental interest in directing the care, custody, and control of their children free from government interference,” that interest is bound by “the Legislature’s authority to regulate the practice of medicine.”

READ MORE: Republican Gov. Mike DeWine Vetoes Anti-Trans Bill After Talking to Families With Trans Kids

“[W]e conclude the Legislature made a permissible, rational policy choice to limit the types of available medical procedures for children, particularly in light of the relative nascency of both gender dysphoria and its various modes of treatment and the Legislature’s express constitutional authority to regulate the practice of medicine,” Justice Rebeca Aizpuru Huddle wrote.

Justice Debra Lehrmann, the only justice to dissent, was clear in her disagreement. She wrote that the decision means “the State can usurp parental authority to follow a physician’s advice regarding their own children’s medical needs.” Lehrmann identified that gender-affirming care can be “lifesaving.”

She also mocked the idea that the Court’s ruling didn’t “deprive children diagnosed with gender dysphoria of appropriate treatment.” Lehrmann pointed out that by upholding the law, it “effectively forecloses all medical treatment options that are currently available to these children … under the guise that depriving parents of access to these treatments is no different than prohibiting parents from allowing their children to get tattoos.”

“The law is not only cruel—it is unconstitutional,” she wrote, calling the ban a “hatchet, not a scalpel.”

Lehrmann also put the lie to the claims by anti-LGBTQ activists that surgery is common for transgender minors.

“Indeed, the leading medical associations in this field do not recommend surgical intervention before adulthood. Without a doubt, the removal of a young child’s genitalia is something that neither the conventional medical community nor conscientious parents would condone,” she wrote. “Moreover, medical experts do not recommend that any medical intervention … be undertaken before the onset of puberty.”

Lehrmann is correct. Prior to puberty, transgender care is basically limited to social changes. For example, wearing gender-affirming clothing and using appropriate pronouns, according to Advocates for Trans Equality.

Puberty blockers can be prescribed for those who are starting puberty. Puberty blockers are safe, according to Cedars-Sinai, and are not only used for transgender youth. A common purpose is to stop precocious puberty, which affects 1 in 5,000 children, including children as young as 6. For both transgender youth and kids going through precocious puberty, puberty blockers are known to improve patients’ mental health, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Puberty blockers are also fully reversible. However, in terms of trans youth, a study published in The Lancet found that 98% of those on puberty blockers went on hormone replacement therapy upon turning 18. But even for those few teens who realize after being on puberty blockers that they aren’t trans, all they have to do is stop taking them, and their puberty will progress as normal.