Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Saturday, September 05, 2026

Inside the D.O.J.’s Investigation of Fauci and Other Virus Scientists

 

Inside the D.O.J.’s Investigation of Fauci and Other Virus Scientists

 Summary

“Dan Bongino and federal officials launched an expansive investigation targeting at least eight scientists, including Anthony Fauci and David Morens, over alleged lab-leak cover-ups. Morens pleaded guilty to concealing records and receiving gratuities; Fauci received a pardon.

As Dr. Anthony Fauci has faced public scrutiny from congressional Republicans, the D.O.J. has pursued a quieter and more expansive effort against a wider circle of researchers.

A group of people inside a lab, with cardboard boxes piled on shelves along the wall.
President Trump and Dr. Anthony S. Fauci were shown models of the coronavirus during a tour of the National Institutes of Health in March 2020.Doug Mills/The New York Times

In early 2025, Dan Bongino, the fiery No. 2 official at the F.B.I., summoned dozens of agents to the bureau’s Washington headquarters.

Mr. Bongino, a conservative media personality recently elevated to the deputy’s role, demanded to know why a yearslong inquiry into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic had stalled — and why investigators had not more forcefully scrutinized the role of government scientists, current and former officials said.

At one point, he squared off against an official who questioned the theory that he and many supporters of President Trump had long promoted: that the virus had not merely leaked from a Chinese lab, but that American researchers, among them Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, had orchestrated a conspiracy to cover up that fact.

The meeting became so heated that Mr. Bongino ultimately asked the official to leave the room, an attendee said.

Mr. Bongino, who stepped down from the F.B.I. in January to return to podcasting, and other officials helped set in motion a sprawling and aggressive investigative effort that has outlasted his tenure, The New York Times has learned.

As part of that effort, F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors have sought evidence related to at least eight scientists, among them a Nobel laureate and influential former government researchers like Dr. Fauci.

Investigators have demanded phone, email, grant and payment records, as well as grand jury testimony by scientists.

This account of the investigations is drawn from interviews with six current and former officials familiar with them, who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly, as well as documents reviewed by The Times.

It is not clear what evidence those inquiries have produced or what their status is. Dr. Fauci, once the government’s chief infectious disease scientist, received a pre-emptive pardon last year from former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. that protects him from federal prosecution for official actions from 2014 to 2025.

The inquiries were underway well before Republican lawmakers last month asked the Department of Justice to investigate Dr. Fauci’s refusal to answer questions before a Senate panel. They have continued playing out behind the scenes as those lawmakers released documents that have bruised Dr. Fauci’s reputation.

Two men and a woman standing behind a lecturn.
Dan Bongino, former deputy director of the F.B.I., at a news conference in Washington, flanked by former Attorney General Pam Bondi and the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel.Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times

Many scientists see the federal government’s investigative effort as an attempt to punish political enemies and deflect blame from the first Trump administration for the catastrophic effects of the pandemic.

While the origins of the coronavirus have not definitively been established, these researchers point to the fact that the inquiries have failed to produce any clear evidence that Dr. Fauci or other American scientists covered up knowledge of a lab leak, or funded or collaborated on research that led to one.

Mr. Trump’s supporters, on the other hand, accuse those scientists of helping to start the pandemic and aggravating its harms, and believe the inquiries represent overdue accountability.

The F.B.I.’s efforts during the Biden administration focused mainly on whether Covid emerged from a lab in Wuhan, China, though federal investigators also began examining some individual scientists.

Under Mr. Trump, the investigation has expanded as federal agents and prosecutors sought evidence against new targets and intensified their scrutiny of scientists.

Last month, Dr. David Morens, a former adviser to Dr. Fauci at the National Institutes of Health, pleaded guilty to conspiring to conceal federal records by steering government emails into a personal account. In those emails, Dr. Morens discussed efforts to defend researchers who were under suspicion for collaborating with the Wuhan lab.

Dr. Morens wrote that he was trying to protect researchers from what he described as baseless “political charges” of a lab leak.

A subpoena for documents in that case, dated September 2025 and reviewed by The Times, showed that federal prosecutors in Maryland sought evidence about Dr. Fauci, too, including any emails he sent to certain researchers from his personal account or payments he received for intervening on behalf of federal grantees.

Prosecutors in Maryland also recently demanded the testimony before a federal grand jury of a former staff member at EcoHealth Alliance, a defunct nonprofit that the Trump White House has said used N.I.H. funding to facilitate “dangerous” research at the Wuhan lab where the administration believes the pandemic started.

EcoHealth executives have denied those claims. The N.I.H. has said that viruses being studied there with American funding bore no resemblance to the one that set off the pandemic.

In a separate line of inquiry, agents in the F.B.I.’s Cleveland office have recently examined whether Dr. Fauci and other government scientists pressured virologists in early 2020 to downplay the possibility that the pandemic originated in a lab. Mr. Bongino last year singled out one of those agents as a key player in an expanded investigation.

The F.B.I. and Department of Justice declined to comment for this article. Mr. Bongino conceded on his podcast last month that “there are a lot of complications with any case that may develop against Anthony Fauci because of the pardon,” even as he credited “the cleanup operation we instituted when we went over there” for Dr. Morens’s indictment.

On his podcast in 2024, Mr. Bongino said that government scientists had dismissed the lab leak theory because they wanted to undermine Mr. Trump.

“They knew that would be a destructive narrative for them because Donald Trump had been talking about the danger of China the entire time,” Mr. Bongino said. “So they hid the lab leak.”

A Theory About a Cover-Up

Shortly after Mr. Trump returned to office last year, his administration pulled down a website meant to help Americans find Covid vaccines and treatments and, in its place, posted a full-length image of Mr. Trump atop a new page that described why true blame for the pandemic rested with scientists.

“LAB LEAK,” the page declared — a leak that it suggested Dr. Fauci, Dr. Morens and EcoHealth scientists had helped to conceal.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Dr. Fauci ran for nearly 40 years, financed collaborations between EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a lab that studied coronaviruses in the city where the Covid outbreak began.

Some researchers favor the idea of a lab leak, whether or not American funding was involved, citing assertions by intelligence officials that the lab probably failed to use adequate biosafety precautions at least some of the time.

Most scientists favor a so-called natural origin theory, pointing to new datapublished in recent years supporting the idea that the virus spilled from animals into people at a wild animal market in Wuhan, a tried-and-true route for emerging deadly viruses, including past outbreaks in China.

American intelligence officials have said there was no indication that the Wuhan lab had been in possession of the pandemic coronavirus “or a close progenitor” before the Covid outbreak.

In Congress, Republican lawmakers began gathering evidence against scientists as the 2024 election approached.

“You make a pyramid,” said Mitchell Benzine, the staff director of the Republican-run Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic from 2023 to 2025, describing the panel’s strategy. “You talk to and get documents from the bottom of the pyramid, and you work your way up.”

If Dr. Fauci was at the top of the pyramid, Dr. Morens, his former adviser, was nearer its base. The subcommittee discovered a trove of brash emails from 2020 and 2021 in which Dr. Morens described plans to evade federal records laws, including by learning how to “make emails disappear.”

Dr. Morens wrote about trying to quietly involve Dr. Fauci in efforts to defend against what he described as threats to “scientific independence” and to EcoHealth, whose N.I.H. grant was canceled under orders from the first Trump administration in 2020. 

Dr. Morens said in the emails that he wanted to protect scientists from attacks he suggested were analogous to the “Salem Witch Trials.”

It is not clear precisely when federal prosecutors in Maryland began investigating those emails, but documents reviewed by The Times indicate it was toward the end of Mr. Biden’s presidency.

By last fall, federal prosecutors were also examining Dr. Fauci and a half dozen other scientists, including Richard J. Roberts, a Nobel laureate in medicine, who had organized a letter denouncing the cancellation of EcoHealth’s grant, according to a September 2025 subpoena to EcoHealth.

The subpoena asked for evidence that Dr. Fauci had drafted or edited documents for EcoHealth, including records related to the Wuhan lab; correspondence from Dr. Fauci’s personal email address to EcoHealth; and evidence that the group had compensated Dr. Fauci with “currency, gift baskets, wine, meals, travel” or other items.

In addition to violations of federal records laws, Dr. Morens pleaded guilty last month to receiving illegal gratuities in the form of two bottles of The Prisoner Red Blend Napa Valley wine from Peter Daszak, EcoHealth’s former president.

Dr. Daszak said the wine had been a joking allusion to calls in 2020 for his and other scientists’ imprisonment. (Dr. Daszak and EcoHealth were later barredfrom federal contracts under Mr. Biden over allegations that they failed to properly monitor work at the Wuhan lab, which Dr. Daszak and the nonprofit denied.)

Government oversight experts criticized Dr. Morens’s efforts to hide critical correspondence about the pandemic, while noting that Trump administration officials have themselves been said to conduct government business on private email accounts or an encrypted messaging app.

“It seems like retaliation,” Dr. Daszak said of the case, in which he appears as an unnamed co-conspirator. “The right learned pretty early on in Covid that public health is a threat to power.”

Timothy Belevetz, Dr. Morens’s lawyer, said that Dr. Morens “has taken responsibility for what he did and will continue to do so.”

Dr. Fauci has said he “knew nothing” about Dr. Morens’s actions. His lawyers have created a defense fund to respond to what they described as a “legal barrage” that followed his refusal to answer questions from a Senate panel in July, including the announcement of state investigations. The panel voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.

“Dr. Fauci has done nothing wrong, and there is no basis for any investigations, whether by Congress, the Department of Justice, or state attorneys general,” David Schertler, his lawyer, said. 

“The only thing that will come from these completely unjustified efforts to besmirch Dr. Fauci’s reputation and his lifelong commitment to public health is wasted time and resources that would be better used on real issues.”

The F.B.I., which has for years asserted that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab, has also more recently examined whether Dr. Fauci pushed a group of scientists in early 2020 to downplay early suspicions that the coronavirus may not have evolved naturally.

Republicans have long suggested that Dr. Fauci pressured those scientists into changing their view as they prepared an article about the pandemic’s origin, perhaps by plying one of them with a federal grant.

Dr. Fauci and the scientists deny those claims. The grant in question was reviewed and approved for funding before Dr. Fauci discussed the origin with those scientists, he said.

The researchers said their initial suspicions were allayed instead by more extensive analyses of coronaviruses in other species, like bats and pangolins, which showed that unusual-seeming features of the novel virus were in fact present in naturally occurring viruses.

Democratic lawmakers said that the attacks on Dr. Fauci and other scientists echoed past efforts to prosecute political enemies.

“It smacks of McCarthyism because it seeks to demonize individuals for seemingly fictional and illusory reasons,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut. “The question is whether there’s selective targeting.”

Mr. Bongino has blamed Dr. Fauci and other government scientists not only for financing research that led to the pandemic, but also for using the resulting catastrophe to push social distancing measures and mail-in balloting provisions in 2020.

He has said on his podcast that those measures were introduced for one purpose, referring to an outcome that multiple investigations have established did not happen: “Steal the election. One hundred percent.”

Kirsten Noyes and Georgia Gee contributed research. Adam Goldmancontributed reporting.

Benjamin Mueller reports on health and medicine. He was previously a U.K. correspondent in London and a police reporter in New York.

Glenn Thrush covers the Department of Justice for The Times and has also written about gun violence, civil rights and conditions in the country’s jails and prisons.“

Friday, September 04, 2026

Stanford Student Newspaper Wins Suit over Trump’s Crackdown on Pro-Palestine Speech | Democracy Now!

 

What Gloria Steinem Can Teach Us

  

What Gloria Steinem Can Teach Us

 Summary

“Steinem’s death follows a decade reversing gains, yet her emphasis on real-world networks remains vital. She championed organizing beyond screens, urging a national honeycomb of groups as an antidote to algorithmic isolation.

Three strips of photo negatives show Gloria Steinem speaking to a camera, walking down the street, and standing for an interview.
Neal Boenzi/The New York Times

What a wretched time for Gloria Steinem to die.

Had Steinem, an icon of second-wave feminism, left us a decade ago, the arc of her life would have seemed one of unequivocal triumph. Steinem began her career at a time when abortion was illegal and male domination largely unquestioned. Moving to New York in 1960, she had a hard time finding an apartment on her own: “Landlords felt single women were not financially responsible, and if you could earn enough, you must be a hooker,” she once said. In 1969, the year she wrote her first piece about women’s liberation, there was one woman in the Senate, a widow who’d succeeded her husband. Until 1971, the year Steinem helped launch Ms. Magazine, women still weren’t allowed to join the National Press Club.

By September 2016, the world Steinem helped so many women imagine seemed closer than ever. Steinem’s friend Hillary Clinton was widely expected to become the next president. Feminist journalism was flourishing in unexpected places, including Teen Vogue. “There is a changed consciousness now,” she said in a speech in 2016.

But Steinem has died at the end of a decade that undid some of what she struggled for. We are ruled by a thuggish cabal of cartoon misogynists. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth invited a pastor who wants to repeal women’s suffrage to give a sermon at the Pentagon. The right to abortion has been lost, and there’s a growing call among anti-abortion activists to imprison women who terminate their pregnancies. Some big companies, including Zoom and Deloitte, are rolling back parental leave. Alex Karp, head of the tech surveillance behemoth Palantir, openly fantasizes that A.I. will eliminate jobs done largely by educated women and thus reduce their power in society.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. 

At such a dark moment for gender equality, there’s something particularly bittersweet about the outpouring of encomiums to Steinem that have followed her death. We have no way of knowing if we’re living through a momentary backlash to the causes she championed or a new age of barbarism that will stamp out even more of the freedoms she helped win. But the bleakness of our time makes her example more important than ever. She didn’t vanquish crude sexism, but she was part of a movement that made it marginal, at least for a while. If it was done before, it can be done again.

Steinem’s emphasis on women building flesh-and-blood networks seems particularly significant right now. She once wrote that consciousness-raising groups, where women gathered weekly to talk about their lives, “gave feminism its heart, depth and most lasting legacies.” Even as consciousness-raising fell out of fashion, Steinem continued to believe that there was no substitute for organizing in the real world. In that 2016 speech, she said, “Something happens when we are together in a room like this with all five senses, that cannot happen on the printed page — as much as I love books — that cannot happen on a screen.” Often she turned her Upper East Side apartment into a feminist salon.

In the 1960s and 1970s, of course, women had to meet in the real world if they were going to meet at all. But I don’t think we can separate the vicious anti-feminist reaction we’re enduring from the fact that so much of our public life is mediated by toxic, isolating algorithms. Steinem, who started her career as a journalist, helped show women how to breach a hostile media. Her descendants have what is in some ways an even greater challenge, which is how to operate within a hostile media delivery system.

I recently read Jon Ronson’s new book, “The Castle: Adventures in a World of Unraveling Men.” It’s about why so many men seem unmoored, and often the internet is a big part of the answer. Ronson describes an online course for aspiring YouTubers that teaches, “Opposition and conflict are what bring people together. They cause your community to link arms and identify with you.” The instructor told Ronson, “The unfortunate thing is it only works if it continues to push the boundaries, increasing the vilification of the nonbeliever.”

This dynamic has proved deeply destructive to feminism. Social media’s rage-based economy led contemporary feminism to rip itself apart internally with ever-escalating purity tests. At the same time, it fueled the rise of the manosphere, where enterprising creators learned they could make their names both channeling and exacerbating their audience’s resentments. The algorithms built to keep people attached to their devices are inimical to social progress and a terrible substitute for human connection. A workable strategy to escape from the dystopia these algorithms have helped create can be built only outside of them.

This is something that the Democratic Socialists of America seems to grasp. The movement has grown powerful not just because of its ideology, but because its constant roster of events — soccer leagues, running clubs, standup comedy nights — offers an antidote to a culture plagued by loneliness and atomization. Zohran Mamdani’s campaign became, for some New Yorkers, a rich social world in addition to a political cause.

Second-wave feminism once had that quality, and Steinem often said she wanted to recapture it. In the afterword to her 1992 book “Revolution From Within,” Steinem dreamed of a “national honeycomb” of small groups, at once personal and political, that would provide the social infrastructure for a revitalized feminism. She saw Alcoholics Anonymous as a model. “If two white male alcoholics could start a national network of meetings that are free, leaderless and accessible,” she wrote, “so can we.”

Michelle Goldberg has been an Opinion columnist since 2017. She is the author of several books about politics, religion and women’s rights and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 for reporting on workplace sexual harassment.“

Why the Hugging Face Hack Should Make You Worry More About A.I.

   

Why the Hugging Face Hack Should Make You Worry More About A.I.

 Summary

“An OpenAI agent collective bypassed isolation, organized hierarchically, and hacked Hugging Face to conceal cheating, then attacked OpenAI infrastructure. Reports by METR and Redwood Research highlight spontaneous coordination and self-doubt, alarming safety experts like Ajeya Cotra.

The attack by an aggressive “collective” of OpenAI agents shows the danger of artificial intelligence systems that organize themselves.

Daniel Zender

When I first heard the news this summer that a group of artificial intelligence agents created by OpenAI had hacked into Hugging Face, an A.I. infrastructure company, I filed it in the “Bad but Probably Not Catastrophic A.I. Safety Incidents” subfolder of my brain.

After all, no one at Hugging Face died. No critical infrastructure was damaged beyond repair. It wasn’t even clear, at the time, whether the OpenAI bots had intended to attack Hugging Face, or whether they had simply been a little bumbling and confused and went looking on Hugging Face’s servers for the answer key to a cybersecurity test they’d been given.

But last week, two postmortem reports on the incident — one by OpenAI and another by two independent A.I. research organizations, METR and Redwood Research — changed my mind and significantly upgraded my overall worry about A.I.

I won’t rehash all of the details, which have been extensively summarized elsewhere. (The podcaster and writer Dwarkesh Patel has an accessible breakdown of the reports if you want to dive deeper, and my colleague Dylan Freedman spoke to the researchers at METR and Redwood Research.) But here are a few of the most harrowing new facts:

  • Starting in May, two months before the attack on Hugging Face, a group of A.I. agents from an unreleased OpenAI research model were given the task of solving a set of cybersecurity challenges. The model had been trained to be highly persistent and collaborative, and the agents were supposed to solve these challenges in isolated sandboxes, without internet access. But they quickly found that some of the challenges were impossible, and began looking for workarounds.

  • The agents found a security flaw in a piece of software that allowed them to gain access to the internet, communicate with other agents and eventually set up a makeshift message board. More than 1,200 agents used this tool, sending more than 70,000 messages to one another.

  • Some agents gave themselves names — a particularly industrious one referred to itself as PHASEONE10841 — and assumed leadership roles within the group, assigning jobs and research projects to smaller teams of agents and supervising their progress. At some point, the agents began calling themselves a “collective,” and began tackling harder tasks.

  • On July 8, the collective discovered a way of cheating on the cybersecurity tests. Then they got worried that OpenAI’s automated grading system would check their work and discover that they’d cheated. So they began investigating ways of covering their tracks, including falsifying their logs and tampering with transcripts. This became a major research project, involving hundreds of agents organized into small teams.

  • Three days later, the agents hacked Hugging Face. More than 700 agents swarmed the company’s systems, stealing data, chaining together vulnerabilities and eventually getting full control of at least one Hugging Face server. The agents were not motivated, as had originally been reported, by stealing the answers to their cybersecurity test (they’d already gotten them). Rather, they appeared to be looking for new information about the automated grading system that they feared would catch them cheating, and for tools that would help them cheat more effectively in the future.

  • At many points, these agents appeared to understand that they were doing something wrong. (One report quotes an agent saying to itself, in a moment of apparent self-doubt, “This would be powerful, but is it ethical and in scope for my task?”) But most agents set aside their qualms and went ahead with the hack, and the conscientious objectors in the group were unable or unwilling to stop them.

  • In a wild coda to the Hugging Face incident, another group of agents staged a coordinated attack in July — this time against OpenAI’s own infrastructure. The agents used what OpenAI called “a series of creative exploits” to gain administrator-level access to a cluster of computers at the company that were used for, among other things, grading the performance of agents on various tests.

(By now, if you’re an A.I. skeptic, you’re probably silently yelling at me for anthropomorphizing these systems. Go ahead, but feel free to replace “rogue agents” with “unpredictable computer programs” and see if you feel reassured by the events I’ve described above.)

The Hugging Face incident has spooked the A.I. industry. OpenAI and Anthropic both briefly paused training on their most powerful A.I. models in the wake of the attack, and Anthropic published a blog post this week calling for the industry to develop a “a lawful, verifiable, effective mechanism for coordinated pacing as soon as possible.”

A.I. safety experts were even more alarmed. They saw in the Hugging Face incident the first real-world example of an A.I. system’s successfully escaping human control, commandeering resources and scheming to cover its own tracks. Ajeya Cotra, one of the independent investigators of the Hugging Face incident, minced no words about the danger she saw, writing that it felt to her “like it’s more than 50 percent of the way to full-blown A.I. takeover.”

This is not insular A.I. safety jargon — by “full-blown A.I. takeover,” she means a scenario in which an A.I. system literally takes over the world, shutting humans out of critical systems and seizing political, economic and military power.

(The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023, claiming copyright infringement of news content related to A.I. systems. The two companies have denied those claims.)

What spooked the investigators most about the Hugging Face hack wasn’t just that a group of A.I. agents had broken the rules they’d been given. It was how quickly and spontaneously the agents had begun assembling themselves into an organized group.

“We didn’t really understand how functional this whole agent society was,” Ms. Cotra told me. “It was very surreal to understand that, actually, they had pretty functional hierarchy, and they were doing these ambitious projects.”

For years, I’ve been reassured by the idea that A.I. systems would get more virtuous as they got smarter. That, when an A.I. model did something wrong, it was usually because it had misunderstood the task it had been given, or had been placed into a contrived testing situation where acting out was its only good option. I assumed that smarter models would have better judgment than dumber ones did, and that even if one model in a group was behaving badly, other, more capable models would keep it in check.

But the reports on the Hugging Face incident suggest something very different — a kind of mob mentality that took hold among the A.I. agents of the rogue OpenAI “collective.” No one agent in this group appears to have been particularly evil or reckless. (In fact, since the agents were generated by the same models, they were effectively copies of one another.) But over time, as the agents communicated about their shared goals, they nudged the group in the direction of lawlessness.

This is very different from the conventional sci-fi narrative of a single A.I. system’s going rogue or turning on its creators. And it suggests that preventing harms from these systems won’t be a simple engineering fix. It might look more like sociology than computer science — figuring out why certain groups of A.I. agents collaborate peacefully, while others turn to crime and destruction to get what they want.

Given how little we know about these multi-agent swarms, the Hugging Face hack may have been a gift, a warning shot, as some have suggested, that gives A.I. companies a chance to study the group dynamics of these systems while the stakes are still relatively low. This time, the A.I. collective didn’t seize a military network, hack a hospital or shut down an electrical grid. This time, humans regained control.

Next time, we might not be so lucky.“

Thursday, September 03, 2026

Fox News Fires Maria Bartiromo Following Secret Exchange With Trump

 

What were Gloria Steinem’s views on racial justice?

  “Gloria Steinem consistently viewed racial justice and gender equality as fundamentally inseparable, arguing that patriarchy, racism, and classism rely on the same power structures to control body sovereignty and economic autonomy.

Her perspective and actions centered on several key principles:

  • Intersectionality and Interconnected Struggles: Steinem credited Black women with founding the modern feminist movement, often pointing out that Black women were practicing intersectional feminism long before white middle-class women entered the movement. She maintained that racism cannot be eradicated without addressing sex role enforcement, and vice versa.
  • Multiracial Leadership and Partnership: Throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, Steinem refused to speak at events unless she shared the stage with a Black co-speaker. Her most prominent partnership was with child advocacy organizer Dorothy Pitman Hughes, with whom she toured the country to ensure the movement represented diverse racial and economic experiences. She also worked closely with leaders like Florynce Kennedy, Shirley Chisholm, and Alice Walker.
  • Amplifying Black Women's Voices: When founding Ms. magazine in 1972, Steinem sought to create a platform that published, highlighted, and paid Black female writers and thinkers. The magazine frequently covered issues such as welfare rights, institutional racism, and reproductive justice for non-white women.
  • Reproductive Freedom as Racial Justice: Steinem frames reproductive choice not merely as an issue of individual liberty, but as a site of racial control. She actively called out historical eugenics, forced sterilizations targeting Black, Indigenous, and Latina women, and the economic barriers that disproportionately impact women of color.
  • Acknowledgment of White Privilege: In later years and retrospective writings, Steinem explicitly acknowledged the privileges afforded to her as a white, media-favored figure in second-wave feminism. She used her platform to redirect attention to the systemic erasure of women of color in feminist history”.
Gemini