Month: October 2023

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClear Wire,

Over the summer, when a Southern California school board opposed a new state-determined social studies curriculum that included a bio of slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a threatening tweet calling out the school board president by name.

“This isn’t Texas or Florida. In the Golden State, our kids have the freedom to learn,” Newsom tweeted. “Congrats Mr. Komrosky you have our attention. Stay tuned.”

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics’ White House/national political correspondent.

Real estate brokerages such as Zillow, RedFin, ReMex and others tumbled after a federal jury found the National Association of Realtors and large residential brokerages such as HomeServices of America and Keller Williams, liable for about $1.8 billion in damages after determining they conspired to keep commissions for home sales artificially high.

Under antitrust rules, the presiding judge could triple the damages verdict, which would total more than $5 billion. The plaintiffs also have asked the judge to order changes to how the industry operates.

The verdict came in the first of two major antitrust lawsuits that target decades-old industry practices and argue that unlawful industry practices have left consumers unable to lower their costs even though internet-era innovations have allowed many buyers to find homes themselves online. The two-week trial involved claims by home sellers in several Midwestern states; they sought to drive down commissions and change the way agents are compensated.

Two brokerages, HomeServices of America and Keller Williams Realty, were also defendants in the case. Two others, Anywhere Real Estate and Re/Max Holdings, settled before trial and agreed to pay almost $140 million combined.

Announced in a packed Kansas City courtroom, the verdict came after just a few hours of jury deliberations. The case was brought by home sellers in several Midwestern states. Their lawyers hugged and shook hands as the verdict was announced.

According to the WSJ, the verdict “could lead to industrywide upheaval by changing decades-old rules that have helped lock in commission rates even as home prices have skyrocketed—which has allowed real-estate agents to collect ever-larger sums.”

It comes in the first of two antitrust lawsuits arguing that unlawful industry practices have left consumers unable to lower their costs even though internet-era innovations have allowed many buyers to find homes themselves online.

For several years NAR has been fending off accusations by US antitrust officials and private litigants that it has conspired to keep home-sale costs high in the face of major technological upheavals. This verdict is by far the group’s biggest setback yet. An NAR spokesman said, “This matter is not close to being final as we will appeal the jury’s verdict.”

HomeServices of America, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, said it intends to appeal. “Today’s decision means that buyers will face even more obstacles in an already challenging real estate market and sellers will have a harder time realizing the value of their homes,” a company spokeswoman said. Keller Williams said it is considering an appeal.

Under the current system, sellers pay their own agent a commission — typically 5% to 6% of a home’s selling price — which is in turn shared with the buyer’s agent. Over the course of the trial, plaintiffs’ attorneys argued this model has suppressed competition by making it difficult for buyers and sellers to negotiate for lower rates.

“NAR and corporate real-estate companies have had a stranglehold on real-estate commissions for too long,” plaintiffs’ lawyer Michael Ketchmark said outside of the courtroom.

The news sent real-estate brokerage stocks tumbling: Redfin and Zillow both plunged as much as 10% before recovering some losses. Traditiona broker Re/Max was down 3%.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in The Hill on the rise of advocacy courses and degrees in higher education. Activism has always been a valued part of our colleges and universities. Indeed, many departments have long incorporated advocacy subjects in their course of study, including in law schools. My concern is the degree to which advocacy is now overwhelming academics in some of these programs.

It is often hard to tell the difference between advocacy groups and advocacy programs in these universities.

For some schools, a new B.A. model – a Bachelors of Advocacy – is emerging in higher education.

Here is the column:

“Field trip for an extra 5 points.” The offer to students at the University of California-Berkeley sounded like a typical offer for students to go to a special exhibit at a museum or lecture at an institute. The “field trip” referenced by graduate assistant Victoria Huynh was joining a protest “against settler-colonial occupation of Gaza.”

This extra credit offer is all too typical of higher education today, where advocacy is now being taught as if it were a course of study. After an outcry, the school solved the problem by ordering “a number of options for extra credit, not just one.”

Many advocacy-based classes have course descriptions that sound analytical and clinical. The UC Davis course “Asian American Communities and Race Relations,” for instance, states that it covers “race relations and the commonalities and differences between Asian Americans and other race and ethnic groups.” However, the assignments and lectures often reflect a political viewpoint that students are expected to mimic if they want to excel in the class.

In this course, a screen shot showed that the class would discuss “Palestinian history in relation to class concepts like colonialism, imperialism, and Third World solidarity.” It is clear enough that “the solidarity” cannot extend to Israel.

Advocacy has increasingly displaced academics in higher education. Activism now permeates higher education as social justice becomes the touchstone for many departments. Today protests rather than Plato are more likely to be the concentration of many students.

Even journalism students are now sometimes told to drop “objectivity” and “leave neutrality behind.” Former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. explained that “pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading ‘bothsidesism’ in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects.”

Advocacy has long been part of graduate programs like law and social work, where students are trained to represent the interests of clients or other individuals. But now, advocacy and activism itself is being offered as a general course for students in place of education. Where protests were once defiant demonstrations held in the university yard, they are now a course of study in classrooms led by academic activists.

For example, Arizona State University offers a BA program entirely on “community advocacy and social policy” that focuses on “historically under-served individuals, families and communities.” Students “complete courses in two core areas: diversity and oppressed populations and social issues and interventions.”

Many schools offer “advocacy and social justice studies.” At the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, students are offered the opportunity to “study social justice with distinguished instructors from a wide range of academic departments, from Afro-American Studies to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies.”

Camden County College offers a diversity and social justice degree based on the advocacy work of the Black Lives Matter movement and the COVID-19 pandemic, which “revealed the depth of social inequality and its life-or-death consequences.” Others offer “a certificate of proficiency in social justice and an A.S. degree in Human Services, Social Justice Advocacy.”

These courses offer far left-faculty platforms to proselytize and politicize. It is often confined to one side of the political spectrum and occurs now on every level of our educational system. In academic departments, future primary and secondary teachers are taught that “teaching is a political act” that allows them to instill political and social values in their young pupils. Those students can then attend college and get degrees in activism and advocacy.

In New York,  1.1 million students were excused by the Department of Education to leave their classes to march against climate change. It seems doubtful that the same accommodation would be allowed for countervailing conservative causes like pro-life marches or demonstrations in favor of gun rights.

These courses dovetail with faculties that have moved radically to the left, with many faculty using their courses to espouse political viewpoints more than educate. The clear message to students is that they are expected to express the same views in their own analysis.

One professor erased any pretense and directly required students to contribute to her advocacy group as part of their training. In the meantime, conservative faculty find themselves censored or suspended for engaging in unpopular speech or attending controversial rallies.

Universities as a whole have largely purged their ranks of Republicans and conservatives over the last few decades. A new survey conducted by the Harvard Crimson shows that more than three-quarters of Harvard Arts and Sciences and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences faculty respondents identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 2.5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4 percent as “very conservative.”

Another study by Georgetown University’s Kevin Tobia and MIT’s Eric Martinez found that only 9 percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools.

In these departments with advocacy and social justice components, diversity of thought runs from the left to the far left.

Some of these faculty advocates can teach by example. At the University of California, Santa Barbara, feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. She later pleaded guilty to criminal assault, but the university refused to fire or discipline her.

Other professors continue to engage in violence or destruction in front of students in order to block pro-life or other views from being expressed on campuses.

The same blind rage was shown after the massacre of Israelis by Hamas this month as faculty rallied students to denounce Israel. UC Davis Professor (and undergraduate adviser) Jemma Decristo posted social media threats against the faculty and the families of those supporting Israel as possible targets. Decristo wrote: “one group of ppl we have easy access to in the U.S. is all these zionist journalists who spread propaganda and misinformation…they have houses w addresses, kids in school, they can fear their bosses, but they should fear us more.” This threatening language was accompanied by pictures of a knife and an axe, followed by three drops of blood.

The university eventually denounced Decristo’s violent, threatening comments, but it had no prior qualms about the professor teaching American studies to UC Davis students. She is part of the radical chic — the far left professors who have populated departments for years.

The emphasis on advocacy at the expense of education has also contributed to the increasing hostility toward opposing views on campus. These professors and students often show little tolerance for others’ views and “advocate” by canceling or silencing other views as “harmful.”

Many of us encourage political activism and engagement of our students. They need to bring their passion and voices to the debates today over issues ranging from abortion to the environment to wars.

We have long benefited from intellectual activists in our country, but they were intellectuals first and activists second. They were thought-leaders who used classic education to advance societal change.

As jobs and markets become more competitive, we are not doing these students any favors as we crank out thousands with few skills beyond staging demonstrations.

China’s scathing criticisms of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, where the death toll has surpassed 8,500 mostly civilians, have grown of late – but this week escalated to a new precedent. 

The Wall Street Journal has confirmed internet users’ deepening suspicions that the country of Israel has disappeared from several online maps after the ‘mistake’ began to gain increased attention. “Internet users in China are expressing bewilderment that the name Israel doesn’t appear on leading online digital maps from Baidu and Alibaba, an ambiguity that matches Beijing’s vague diplomacy in the region and contrasts with its attentiveness to maps generally,” WSJ writes Tuesday. But some pundits have said the claim is misleading, stressing that many Chinese maps don’t label “disputed areas” by default.  

The internationally recognized borders of the Israeli state are also missing. The report says that Israel may have gone ‘missing’ on the popular maps since the start of the Oct.7 conflict and Israel’s subsequent bombing campaign on Gaza. 

But as WSJ also points out, neither major Chinese company has publicly acknowledged the missing country information:

The same is true with online maps produced by Alibaba’s Amap, where even small nations like Luxembourg are clearly marked. Neither company responded to questions on Monday. It is unclear whether the development is new, though it has been discussed by Chinese internet users since war broke out.

China’s government has over the years cried foul and levied fines over maps published elsewhere online, such as on hotel websites, for failing to strictly adhere to Beijing’s territorial claims, like leaving off a nine-dotted line stretching around the South China Sea that isn’t internationally recognized.

Indeed this could be a subtle game of ‘retaliation’ for when Western sources publish maps which Beijing vehemently disagrees with, such as depicting Taiwan as independent from the Chinese mainland.

Israel has disappeared from China’s online maps – The Wall Street Journal

Users have noticed that the country’s name does not appear on online digital maps provided by companies such as Baidu and Alibaba. They show Israel’s recognized borders, Palestinian territories, and key… pic.twitter.com/HgCqkkW9Uh

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) October 31, 2023

Additionally, China has increasingly aligned its foreign policy with the Global South in recent months, and the Gaza crisis is a further demonstration of this trend.

In statements from the foreign ministry, Chinese officials have consistently highlighted Israel’s bombing of Gazan civilians, instead of focusing on denunciations of the Oct.7 terror attack by Hamas (as the US and much of the West has done). “Every country has the right to self-defense, but every country should abide by international humanitarian law and protect the safety of civilians,” FM Wang Yi told his Israeli counterpart Eli Cohen a week ago.

And then there’s this provocative tweet from the Chinese embassy in France, rejecting Western claims of “genocide” against Uyghurs in Xinjiang, while highlighting that Gaza lies in ruins…

Sans titre. pic.twitter.com/JolIpmyZbA

— Ambassade de Chine en France (@AmbassadeChine) October 30, 2023

“As long as [any resolution] is conducive to peace, China will firmly support it; as long as [any resolution] is conducive to Palestinian-Israeli reconciliation, China will do its best,” Wang had said. It will be interesting to see what becomes of the clearly deteriorating Israel-China relations by the end of this current crisis. 

Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClearPolitics.com,

More than a decade ago, President Obama scolded the Supreme Court for reversing “a century of law” and opening “the floodgates for special interest” to “spend without limit in our elections.”

It was during the State of the Union, and while the former president qualified his criticism by offering “all due deference to the separation of powers,” Justice Samuel Alito was caught on camera muttering an objection.

Seated in the front of the House of Representatives, Alito seemed to say, “Not true.”

Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts, who had employed a young lawyer from Missouri just two years prior, didn’t move a muscle.

Sen. Josh Hawley told RealClearPolitics that the episode “predates me,” but on the substance of the question, the senior Republican senator from Missouri, the same young lawyer who once clerked for Roberts on the high court, sides with Obama, not the conservative justices.

Albeit for very different reasons.

“I am an originalist,” he said in a Monday interview, “and I don’t think you can make an originalist case for business corporations being treated like individuals when it comes to the right to political speech.”

Thirteen years removed from that exchange between Obama and the justices, Hawley plans to introduce legislation that would gut Citizens United v. FEC, RCP is first to report.

“My goal is to get corporate money out of our politics,” he said.

His aim is to stop “corporate influence” from “controlling our elections.”

This kind of rhetoric is not unusual. But it usually comes from Democrats.

President Biden pledged to overturn Citizens United and bring to heal the Super PACs that shower politicians with the kind of unlimited anonymous donations known colloquially as “dark money.” His closest ally in this effort: Progressive Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, who blames the decision for turning America into “an oligarchy” where billionaires “buy elections.”

And now this coalition includes at least one Republican. Hawley blames Citizens United for giving corporations free rein to “sink their teeth” into the American political process.

The Hawley legislation would ban publicly traded corporations from making independent expenditures and giving to Super PACs while prohibiting them from cutting political ads or engaging in “other electioneering communications.” Ironically, however, it would not stop the conservative group that upended modern election law. Citizens United is itself a non-profit and, therefore, wouldn’t be affected.

The bill likely has little chance of making it to the president’s desk. Similar proposals have died in committee. All the same, the legislation represents the latest fissure between the Grand Old Party and the corporations. As the Republican realignment continues, on this issue, Hawley hammers the wedge.

“Let’s get one thing straight,” Hawley bellowed this summer, “Corporations are not people.”

The crowd, this one gathered in Washington for the social conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition summit, barely stirred.

But then they erupted when the populist senator continued, “I’ve got news for these woke corporations: We are not going to surrender this nation to the cultural Marxists in the C-suite.”

Would Hawley still seek to muzzle corporations if the content of their speech was different, though? “Well, actions do have consequences,” the senator replied.

Bad trade deals, monopolies over everyday pharmaceuticals, and offshore industries – Hawley blames all of this on Wall Street getting involved in politics, saying that politically connected corporations “have been in favor of almost everything that has been devastating for us.” Beyond economics, he added, “what’s new in the last two or three years” is those same corporations “now want to dictate voting laws in the states” and “now want to dictate rules on biological men playing women’s sports.”

For example, Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines, two of the biggest employers in Georgia, publicly oppose that state’s efforts to tighten voter registration requirements in the wake of the 2020 election. Another example is the dark money donors who provided $145 million to pro-Biden groups that year, helping pave his way to the White House and dwarfing the $28.4 million spent on behalf of Donald Trump.

“That is not a reason in-and-of-itself to get the Constitution right,” Hawley cautions, however. While the senator insists that Democrats benefit disproportionately from dark money, he argued that “this isn’t a game that is good for anybody” and “most importantly, the voters don’t benefit from it.”

This is consistent with the general disposition of the senator who once wrote an adoring biography of Teddy Roosevelt. It is also an evolution from a politician who welcomed the endorsement and cashed the checks of Citizens United during his first campaign. Hawley does not dispute the development.

A closer examination of the history, he said, “looking back at how the Founders thought of corporations” reveals that the earliest Americans “were deeply skeptical of the corporate form.” On the jurisprudence question, he added, “I just don’t think that history supports the outcome that the Court ultimately got to there.”

More recent history can be found in the conservative opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. Reflecting the view of that editorial board, Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, celebrated the anniversary of Citizens United in 2020, writing that “the ruling has empowered small-dollar donors and political outsiders, not corporations.” The donor who writes a check from the kitchen table, the former FEC chair argued, is now king in American politics, not the Super PAC.

Hawley suggests that those who doubt the power of corporate dollars in politics visit Capitol Hill. “I’ve seen it with my own eyes,” he said before pointing to TikTok, the Chinese-owned social media company.

“A year ago, we were talking about a nationwide ban on TikTok. I was able to get one passed at the federal level last December,” he said.

“Today, it is difficult to get even my most ardent anti-tech partners to talk about this because TikTok has gone out and spent incredible sums of money to get influence on both sides of the aisle.”

According to federal disclosures, TikTok and its parent company spent more than $13 million on lobbying the federal government in the last four years. A spokesman for the company declined to address this when RCP requested comment.

Increasingly, Hawley is more likely to echo T.R. than Ronald Reagan. He notes how Roosevelt warned against “the malefactors of great wealth” and speaks admirably of his wars with the railroads. The senator also points to scandals of the past, like the Teapot Dome Scandal, as a prologue for modern malfeasance.

“Not a lot has changed in the last century. They would do that today, if they could get away with it,” Hawley said of disparate corporate actors from Silicon Valley to Wall Street without naming anyone in particular.

“And who knows,” he added, “maybe they are.”

Republicans who once felt at ease among corporate power are increasingly skeptical. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy publicly divorced the Chamber of Commerce this year. Ohio Sen. JD Vance is currently at war with the railroads over safety regulations. Businessman-turned-presidential-candidate Vivek Ramaswamy seemed to rebuke the ghost of Reagan during the August primary debate.

And last month, Hawley landed well to the left of the White House, but only slightly to the right of the likes of Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when he proposed capping the annual percentage rate of credit cards at 18%.

The Hawley project then can perhaps be best described as an effort to export traditional conservative skepticism of big government to the realm of big corporations. “What we find, and what lawsuits like the Missouri v. Biden case exposed, is that big corporations and big government work hand in hand,” he said referencing the federal case that found the White House lobbied social media companies to remove content critical of the administration.

“I would just say to my conservative friends, listen, there is no reason we should want to empower these mega-corporations, who are already in bed and colluding with the government, and give them control over our elections and over our speech,” Hawley said.

It remains to be seen whether Republicans will listen, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. He celebrated the initial action by the Supreme Court.

“For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process,” McConnell said in a statement when the conservative court handed down Citizens United, celebrating the decision as “an important step” in “restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups.”

A decade later, McConnell added, “My warning to corporate America is to stay out of politics.”

As the Washington Post reported at the time, the Republican leader included a qualification during a local news conference.

“I’m not talking about political contributions,” he said.

Tesla’s long-awaited Cybertruck, which boasts bulletproof capabilities (though limited to 9mm rounds), is going viral again.

A new video shows Joe Rogan shooting an arrow via a compound bow into the passenger door – only to ricochet off the 301 stainless steel exoskeleton. This must mean the ‘apocalypse vehicle’ is now “arrow-proof.”

Joe Rogan shoots an arrow at the Cybertruck with Elon.

You can watch the full 2.5 hour interview here: https://t.co/FRt2FDJFhm pic.twitter.com/yHrz5Rxw6T

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) October 31, 2023

Responding to Rogan’s Instagram post, one user said, “Already pre-ordered mine!!,” while another said, “Getting ready for ww3.” 

The video is part of Elon Musk’s visit to the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. This is the billionaire’s fourth appearance on the show. 

Earlier this month, Musk revealed on X his team of Tesla engineers “emptied the entire drum magazine of a Tommy gun into the driver door” of the new Cybertruck, adding the bulletproof test was like “Al Capone-style.”

We emptied the entire drum magazine of a Tommy gun into the driver door Al Capone style. No bullets penetrated into the passenger compartment.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2023

Musk was commenting on a video shared by the Tesla Owners Club of Silicon Valley that shows a Cybertruck coasting down the highway with dozens of bullet holes in the vehicle’s driver’s side.

BREAKING: Cybertruck seen on the highway potentially gone through bullet proof testing 📐👽🤯

Seen by member of the club. pic.twitter.com/wBr9mNrLl7

— Tesla Owners Silicon Valley (@teslaownersSV) October 20, 2023

The Cybertruck’s skin is the same stainless steel used in SpaceX’s Starship spacecraft, according to a 2019 Motortrend article.

… and now you understand why Tesla does not advertise or pay for endorsements. This type of organic advertising is enough to attract Cybertruck demand as Democrats fail to enforce law and order across major metro areas, which has only triggered one of the worst crime tsunamis in a generation. 

Who doesn’t want an apocalypse vehicle that can stop arrows from compound bows and 9mm rounds? 

Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClear Wire,

Republican governors are quietly leaning on one of their former colleagues while pressing the NCAA to bar biological men and women from competing against one another. It is the latest in an ongoing debate over transgender athletes in women’s sports.

Led by South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, nine states brought their case directly to NCAA President Charlie Baker, warning the former Republican Massachusetts governor that, without a change in rules, “truly remarkable female athletes” were at risk of being dominated by “average male athletes.”

According to sources familiar with those discussions, Baker in turn referred the governors to a body called the Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports.

“The NCAA has the chance to guarantee an environment where female college athletes can thrive without the concern of inequities. We trust that you also want to guarantee just such an environment,” the governors wrote that body in a letter obtained first by RealClearPolitics.

Arguments over including transgender athletes in women’s sports have divided the country in recent years, and the issue has become something of a litmus test for the candidates now running for the Republican presidential nomination.

“In Florida, girls are going to play girls sports and boys are going to play boys sports,” Gov. Ron DeSantis, said in 2021 while signing a bill mandating that policy. On the campaign trail, meanwhile, former South Carolina Gov.  Nikki Haley has called keeping biological boys out of girls spaces “the women’s issue of our time.” For his part, former President Trump has vowed to “defeat the cult of gender ideology.”

Eighteen states have passed laws banning transgender athletes from participating in female school sports, and earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that West Virginia’s ban was constitutional and could remain in place.

The Biden administration has proposed federal rules that would allow schools to place limits on transgender students competing on teams that do not match their biological sex. The proposed rules would, however, bar schools from enacting across-the-board bans on trans athletes. According to the governors, this has left the states as “the last line of defense for protecting fairness in women’s and girls’ sports.”

According to a source familiar with the drafting of the letter, Baker was “very gracious” and “highly cooperative” even as Republicans lean on the organization that he now leads to update their rules.

The letter follows a call that Noem made two years ago to build a “coalition to defend fairness in women’s sports.” That bloc is now emerging. Eight governors co-signed the letter to the NCAA: Sarah Sanders of Arkansas, Mike Parsons of Missouri, Greg Gianforte of Montana, Joe Lombardo of Nevada, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, Gregg Abbott of Texas, and Mark Gordon of Wyoming. Notably, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, chairman of the Republican Governors Association’s policy arm, which represents the 26 states with GOP executives, also co-signed the letter to the NCAA.

The NCAA has adopted a sport-by-sport approach, which the governors oppose. Proponents note that this policy brings the NCAA in line with their counterparts on both the U.S. and international Olympic committees.

“But this policy allows the NCAA to avoid responsibility for ensuring the fairness of collegiate sports – therefore it must be changed,” the GOP governors wrote in their letter.

The governors pointed to “fundamental” differences between men and women, arguing that “biological men are generally taller, faster, stronger, and have more testosterone than biological women,” which when they compete against one another “puts women, through no fault of their own, at a disadvantage.”

Exhibit A for the Republican governors is Riley Gaines, the former Kentucky swimmer who set Southeastern Conference records before finishing in a dead heat with transgender swimmer Lia Thomas of the University of Pennsylvania in 200-yard NCAA freestyle championship in 2022.

“Traditionally, when two swimmers tie, they both stand on top of the podium – but Riley was told that the trophy was going to be given to Lia. When Riley asked why she couldn’t stand for photos with the first-place trophy that she rightfully earned, she was given a series of non-answers that boiled down to ‘we just have to give it to Lia,’” the governors wrote.

“The decade of hard work and the countless hours spent in the pool were suddenly wasted. Riley’s lifetime of achievement was ripped away from her by someone who shouldn’t have even been in the race—all for a photo op,” they continued.

During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month, Baker distanced himself from the rules that allowed Lia to compete against Gaines, noting that the controversy predated his time as head of the NCAA.

“As I said before, the rules around transgender athletes generally are more restrictive today than they were in 2022,” Baker told lawmakers. “And I can state pretty clearly that no one’s going to get forced into any sort of situation that’s going to make them uncomfortable.”

That testimony has not assuaged the fears of the coalition of governors led by Noem.

“The NCAA has the opportunity to guarantee a fair environment for women’s sports. If you take this opportunity, it will expand the possibilities for so many young women for years to come,” they wrote. “But if you continue the NCAA’s misguided policies, stories like Riley Gaines’ will only become more common.”