As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz details below, geopolitical risk rose from rank 21 in 2023 to rank 9 in 2025 and, according to business leaders, is expected to climb further to rank 5 by 2028.
AI-related risks meanwhile were ranked 49th by the experts surveyed in 2023, before rising to rank 29 in 2025. They are projected to come in eighth in 2028.
Broken down by continents, Asia is to experience the biggest increase in geopolitical risk, with the indicator expected to rise from rank 11 to rank 4, above the global average, by 2028.
In Europe, geopolitical volatility is already hugely elevated in rank 6 of all business risk. This is still projected to further increase until 2028, according to experts, when geopolitical volatility is believed to become the third-biggest risk in Europe.
North America is expected to come in only slightly below the global average, while the situation is more relaxed in Latin America.
Overall, the biggest business risk in 2028 (as well as 2025) will continue to be cyber attacks and data breaches.
Other than between 2023 and 2025, 2028 will see more of a change in the top 3, with increasing competition moving up and replacing business interruption.
Supplying Tomahawk Missiles To Ukraine Will Destroy US-Russia Relations, Putin Warns
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that any Washington decision to supply Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles for strikes deep into Russian territory would irreparably damage Moscow’s relations with Washington.
The warning comes less than two months after Putin met with President Donald Trump at a summit in Alaska, which sought de-escalation in Ukraine and was focused on improving bilateral relations. But now Putin is making clear that these relations could be destroyed, also at a moment the extension to the New START nuclear treaty has left some breathing room for nuclear negotiations.
“This will lead to the destruction of our relationship. Or at least the emerging positive trends in this relationship. So I’m saying what I think. And how things turn out depends not only on us,” Putin said in a fresh interview with Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin, parts of which were widely published Sunday.
Given the Tomahawk missile has a range of at least 1,500 miles, it could potentially hit Moscow and offices of Kremlin leaders, unleashing the likelihood of runaway escalation toward WW3. This is basically what Moscow is now warning about.
Already the US has said it is assisting Kiev with long-range targeting, which has included daily drone warfare, sometimes reaching over 800 miles into Russia with strikes on energy facilities. Probably such intel-sharing had long been happening for years in the war.
Vice President J.D. Vance had last week indicated the US is looking into the European request to send Tomahawks, and the Kremlin has said it would be deeply surprised if the US took this step.
Still, Trump has voiced frustration with Putin, going so far as to call Russia a “paper tiger” for its inability to quickly and decisively defeat Ukraine.
Yet it should be remembered that Russia’s actions are still only at the level of “Special Military Operation” and a full war mobilization has not been ordered.
Moscow has not revealed an intent to utterly destroy Kiev, and for the most part has not begun obliterating ‘decision-making’ centers, leaving open a chance for de-escalation.
Putin also last Thursday separately pointed out it was impossible to use Tomahawks without the direct participation of American specialists and thus any supply of these missiles to Ukraine would trigger a “qualitatively new stage of escalation.”
“This will mean a completely new, qualitatively new stage of escalation, including in relations between Russia and the United States,” Putin emphasized.
Cracker Barrel Dumps Woke Agency Responsible For Logo Change Amid Exec Departure
Cracker Barrel has fired the marketing agency responsible for its controversial woke logo design, which the company quickly backtracked on after public outcry.
In an Oct. 2 statement, the company said that it was ending its relationship with California-based strategic and creative growth consultancy, Prophet, which had advised them on brand refresh initiatives – including the recent logo and restaurant redesigns that did not go over well, to put it mildly.
The company also accepted the resignation of SVP Laura Daily, who had been with the company since 2012.
“We are grateful to Laura for her leadership, including being a driving force behind the growth of our retail business during her tenure, and thank Cammie for the meaningful contributions and impact she made through her nearly a decade at the Company,” said CEO Julie Masino.
Masino – who gets to keep her job, announced the new logo on Aug. 19. The following day the company’s market cap crashed by nearly $100 million. One week later, Cracker Barrel announced that it would return to the old logo.
“We thank our guests for sharing your voices and love for Cracker Barrel. We said we would listen, and we have. Our new logo is going away, and our ‘Old Timer’ will remain,” the company said in a statement.
Other corporate shuffling includes the promotion of Doug Hisel – previously vice president (VP) of field operations, who is now the senior vice president (SVP) of store operations. He has been with the company for 18 years.
Meanwhile, former employee Thomas Yun is rejoining the company as vice president for menu strategy and innovation.
“These changes to our organizational structure, along with new leadership appointments and promotions, mark a strategic step forward as we sharpen our focus on consistently craveable food and warm country hospitality,” said Masino. “This transition reduces layers in the organization as we bring a hyperfocus on ensuring both every plate served and every interaction with our guests reflects the care and quality we stand for.”
As the Epoch Times notes further, President Donald Trump had also called on Cracker Barrel to give up its new redesign. Trump welcomed the switchback in an Aug. 27 Truth Social post.
“Congratulations, Cracker Barrel, on changing your logo back to what it was,” he wrote. “All of your fans very much appreciate it. Good luck into the future. Make lots of money and, most importantly, make your customers happy again!”
Cracker Barrel announced its full fiscal year 2025 financial results on Sept. 17.
The company reported $3.48 billion in revenues for the year, up 0.4 percent from the previous fiscal year. Net income was up 13.3 percent, while earnings per share jumped 12.6 percent.
“Many elements of our plan are working well and delivering results, as evidenced by five consecutive quarters of comparable store restaurant sales increases and 9 percent adjusted EBITDA growth in fiscal 2025,” Masino said. EBITDA refers to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.
“Looking ahead, there is much to be optimistic about, and our teams are focused on getting back to the momentum we created last fiscal year.”
For fiscal year 2026, the company is expecting revenues in the range of $3.35 billion to $3.45 billion. It projects opening two new Cracker Barrel stores and shutting down 14 Maple Street units. Cracker Barrel acquired biscuit company Maple Street in 2019.
President Donald Trump is sending 300 members of the California National Guard to Oregon after a judge temporarily blocked him from deploying the Beaver State’s guard to Portland, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Oct. 5.
Newsom vowed to fight the move in court.
The White House on Oct. 5 did not immediately confirm the deployment. The California National Guard referred questions to the Department of War. A War Department spokesperson declined to comment.
In a statement posted to his website, Newsom called Trump’s mobilization of hundreds of California National Guardsmen to Oregon a “breathtaking abuse of the law and power.”
“The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words—ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents,” Newsom said.
“The commander-in-chief is using the U.S. military as a political weapon against American citizens. We will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the President of the United States.”
Months ago, Trump federalized California’s National Guard over Newsom’s objection following protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
A federal judge on Oct. 4 temporarily blocked Trump from deploying the Oregon National Guard to Portland in response to violent protests targeting immigration officers.
“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Judge Karin J. Immergut, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, wrote in her order.
“This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation.”
U.S. District Judge Michael Simon recused himself from the case when the Department of Justice filed papers with the court accusing Simon’s wife, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), of publicly criticizing Trump’s plan.
Immergut was randomly assigned to the case after the recusal, a court clerk told Simon.
National Guard in Portland, Chicago
Portland’s ICE building has been the scene of nightly protests, and Trump described Portland as a “war zone” rife with crime and unrest. Trump also called Chicago a “war zone.”
Trump ultimately authorized the deployment of 300 Illinois National Guard troops on Oct. 4 to protect federal agents and assets in Chicago.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson confirmed the deployment in a statement to The Epoch Times.
“Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders like Pritzker have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has authorized 300 national guardsmen to protect federal officers and assets,” she said. “President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities.”
Pritzker accused the Trump administration of attempting to escalate tensions amid ongoing clashes between protesters and federal officers in the Chicago area.
“It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will,” Pritzker wrote in an Oct. 4 statement. “They will pull hardworking Americans out of their regular jobs and away from their families all to participate in a manufactured performance—not a serious effort to protect public safety.”
On October 3, the Supreme Court granted cert in Wolford v. Lopez on the following issue: “Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier?”
In response to Bruen‘s holding that citizens may not be denied permits to carry firearm without a special need, several states enacted sweeping bans on where firearms may be carried. One such provision enacted by Hawaii prohibits the carrying of firearms by a permit holder onto private property open to the public unless the owner affirmatively gives permission by “unambiguous written or verbal authorization” or by the “posting of clear and conspicuous signage.” The Ninth Circuit upheld this prohibition in Wolford v. Lopez (2024).
That conflicts with the Second Circuit’s decision in Antonyuk v. James (2024), which found violative of the Second Amendment New York’s ban on firearm possession by a permitee onto private property open to the public unless the owner or lessee of the property posts clear and conspicuous signage or otherwise gives express consent to bring the firearm onto the property. That created an unprecedented default presumption that carriage is banned, instead of the historical presumption that it is banned only if explicitly done so.
To show that Hawaii’s reverse default presumption satisfied Bruen‘s requirement that a restriction find analogues in American historical tradition, Wolford pointed to a 1771 New Jersey law focusing on hunting that prohibited going on the lands of another armed without consent, and an 1865 Louisiana law that prohibited carrying firearms on the premises or plantation of another without consent. But as Judge Lawrence VanDyke pointed out, dissenting from denial of en banc rehearing, the 1771 New Jersey law was “an antipoaching and antitrespassing ordinance,” while the 1865 Louisiana law was one of the “notorious Black Codes that sought to deprive African Americans of their rights, including the right to keep and bear arms otherwise protected by state law.”
As I noted in a previous post, the United States filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the cert petition in Wolford, explaining that “after Bruen, five States, including Hawaii, inverted the longstanding presumption and enacted a novel default rule under which individuals may carry firearms on private property only if the owner provides express authorization, such as by posting a conspicuous sign allowing guns.” As the brief explained, the Court’s consideration of the issue “would help lower courts seeking to interpret the Second Amendment, legislatures seeking to comply with the Constitution, and (most important) ordinary Americans seeking to exercise their fundamental right to possess and carry arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense.”
The Wolfordcert petition also proposed that the Court resolve a second issue: “Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen‘s text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits?” While the Court did not grant cert on that issue, it is sure to covered in the briefing, and the Court may well expand on its prior rulings that focused on Founding-era history and allowed later history only if consistent with Founding-era history. On that topic, see Mark W. Smith’s article “Attention Originalists: The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, not 1868.”
Another state that tried to nullify Bruen was New Jersey, which prohibited carrying a firearm on “private property, including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional or undeveloped property, unless the owner has provided express consent or has posted a sign indicating that it is permissible to carry on the premises a concealed handgun.” After the briefing in Wolford was complete, on September 10 the Third Circuit decided Koons v. Attorney General New Jersey, which held this ban likely to be violative of the Second Amendment as applied to carriage on private property open to the public, further buttressing the challengers in Wolford.
The Supreme Court has now decided to resolve an outlier law without precedent in American history until a handful of states sought to push back on the Court’s ruling in Bruen. Most of the other of the Court’s prior Second Amendment precedents invalidated outlier laws – the handgun bans in the District of Columbia (Heller) and Chicago (McDonald), and the discretionary licensing law in New York (Bruen). However it decides Wolford is sure to give major guidance as applied to the avalanche of other Second Amendment cases being litigated mostly in the same restrictive states.
On October 3, the Supreme Court granted cert in Wolford v. Lopez on the following issue: “Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier?”
In response to Bruen‘s holding that citizens may not be denied permits to carry firearm without a special need, several states enacted sweeping bans on where firearms may be carried. One such provision enacted by Hawaii prohibits the carrying of firearms by a permit holder onto private property open to the public unless the owner affirmatively gives permission by “unambiguous written or verbal authorization” or by the “posting of clear and conspicuous signage.” The Ninth Circuit upheld this prohibition in Wolford v. Lopez (2024).
That conflicts with the Second Circuit’s decision in Antonyuk v. James (2024), which found violative of the Second Amendment New York’s ban on firearm possession by a permitee onto private property open to the public unless the owner or lessee of the property posts clear and conspicuous signage or otherwise gives express consent to bring the firearm onto the property. That created an unprecedented default presumption that carriage is banned, instead of the historical presumption that it is banned only if explicitly done so.
To show that Hawaii’s reverse default presumption satisfied Bruen‘s requirement that a restriction find analogues in American historical tradition, Wolford pointed to a 1771 New Jersey law focusing on hunting that prohibited going on the lands of another armed without consent, and an 1865 Louisiana law that prohibited carrying firearms on the premises or plantation of another without consent. But as Judge Lawrence VanDyke pointed out, dissenting from denial of en banc rehearing, the 1771 New Jersey law was “an antipoaching and antitrespassing ordinance,” while the 1865 Louisiana law was one of the “notorious Black Codes that sought to deprive African Americans of their rights, including the right to keep and bear arms otherwise protected by state law.”
As I noted in a previous post, the United States filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the cert petition in Wolford, explaining that “after Bruen, five States, including Hawaii, inverted the longstanding presumption and enacted a novel default rule under which individuals may carry firearms on private property only if the owner provides express authorization, such as by posting a conspicuous sign allowing guns.” As the brief explained, the Court’s consideration of the issue “would help lower courts seeking to interpret the Second Amendment, legislatures seeking to comply with the Constitution, and (most important) ordinary Americans seeking to exercise their fundamental right to possess and carry arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense.”
The Wolfordcert petition also proposed that the Court resolve a second issue: “Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen‘s text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits?” While the Court did not grant cert on that issue, it is sure to covered in the briefing, and the Court may well expand on its prior rulings that focused on Founding-era history and allowed later history only if consistent with Founding-era history. On that topic, see Mark W. Smith’s article “Attention Originalists: The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, not 1868.”
Another state that tried to nullify Bruen was New Jersey, which prohibited carrying a firearm on “private property, including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional or undeveloped property, unless the owner has provided express consent or has posted a sign indicating that it is permissible to carry on the premises a concealed handgun.” After the briefing in Wolford was complete, on September 10 the Third Circuit decided Koons v. Attorney General New Jersey, which held this ban likely to be violative of the Second Amendment as applied to carriage on private property open to the public, further buttressing the challengers in Wolford.
The Supreme Court has now decided to resolve an outlier law without precedent in American history until a handful of states sought to push back on the Court’s ruling in Bruen. Most of the other of the Court’s prior Second Amendment precedents invalidated outlier laws – the handgun bans in the District of Columbia (Heller) and Chicago (McDonald), and the discretionary licensing law in New York (Bruen). However it decides Wolford is sure to give major guidance as applied to the avalanche of other Second Amendment cases being litigated mostly in the same restrictive states.
Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe said on Sept. 30 that he has authorized the state’s National Guard troops to provide administrative and logistical support to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) law enforcement operations in the state.
The authorization came in response to a request from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Department of War (DOW), according to a statement released by the governor’s office.
It stated that National Guard troops will be authorized to assist with “administrative, clerical, and logistical duties,” such as data entry and case management at ICE processing facilities starting on Oct. 1.
They are authorized to assist ICE until Sept. 30, 2026, the governor’s office stated. Kehoe, a Republican, said that this support is intended to enable ICE personnel to focus on “core enforcement and security functions” across the state.
“Public safety, keeping Missourians safe, and upholding the rule of law is our administration’s top priority,” the governor said in the statement.
“The Missouri National Guard is uniquely equipped to provide this essential administrative support, and we are confident their contributions will be invaluable to immigration enforcement efforts.”
His office stated that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on July 25 authorized federal funding for members of the National Guard to provide support to DHS at ICE processing facilities through Title 32, which allows guard members to perform missions for the Army, Air Force, president, or war secretary with the permission of the governor.
Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas, a Democrat, issued a statement denouncing the governor’s decision, saying that it would divert National Guard service members from their mission of protecting the public.
“Using the brave women and men of our National Guard as paper pushers and case managers at immigration facilities undermines their mission and the law, directs them away from the important storm-response and local public safety efforts Missourians care about, and marks another example of Missouri public policy operating for the interests of Washington elites rather than every day Missourians,” he stated.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also condemned Kehoe’s move to authorize National Guard troops to assist with ICE operations amid the Trump administration’s ongoing immigration crackdown.
“With the backdrop of masked immigration agents breaking apart our families and communities, it is particularly concerning that the Governor is asking Guard members to voluntarily participate in this agenda,” Luz María Henríquez, executive director at the ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement.
Missouri’s authorization came just days after Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landy sent a letter to DOW on Sept. 29 requesting the deployment of 1,000 Louisiana National Guard troops to support law enforcement agencies.
The DHS also has asked the Pentagon and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker to allow the deployment of 100 military personnel to Illinois “for the protection of ICE personnel and facilities” after clashes erupted between protesters and federal agents outside an ICE processing facility in Broadview, Pritzker said.
Pritzker told reporters on Sept. 29 that he opposes the troop deployment.
Last week, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, under Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, in the wake of escalating clashes outside federal immigration facilities. In response, the state of Oregon filed a lawsuit on Sept. 28, alleging that Trump had exceeded his executive authority in ordering the deployment.
Trump has already deployed troops to Los Angeles and the District of Columbia, and he has threatened to send them to Baltimore, New Orleans, and Memphis, Tennessee, as part of a broader fight against urban crime.
About 60 students walked out of morning classes on Oct. 1 to protest their high school’s policy allowing male students who identify as transgender to use girls’ bathrooms, in Anaheim, California.
Joining the students at a press conference at Esperanza High School, opponents of state polices allowing transgender-identifying males to compete in girls’ and women’s sports and use female bathrooms and locker rooms said it’s time for the Trump administration to follow through on its threats to withhold federal funding from schools accused of violating Title IX.
Sophia Lorey, outreach director at California Family Council and former college soccer athlete, told The Epoch Times the federal government “should start pulling and withholding federal funding, especially in states such as California that “continue to put girls in harm’s way.”
“It’s time that these lawsuits start playing out,” Lorey said following the press conference.
Although many parents believe Title IX violations aren’t an issue if their children aren’t playing sports, she said, the walkout showed that all girls in high school who simply want to safely use the restroom are affected, Lorey said.
California lawmakers in 2013 passed Assembly Bill 1266, which allowed males who identify as transgender to use girls’ restrooms.
At the walkout—attended by about 35 female and 25 male students—Lorey accused state lawmakers of failing to protect girls.
“These students have taken it into their own hands to lead a student walkout, to stand strong and say they are not OK with boys in the girls’ restrooms,” she said.
The girls voiced concerns about a male student using the girls’ bathroom, and that it makes them feel uncomfortable and unsafe.
Lesley Ledesma, a junior student who led the walkout, said a transgender-identifying male has been using the girls’ restrooms. And, when she complained to the school administrators, she was told that if she felt uncomfortable sharing the bathroom with him, she could use the one in the nurse’s office instead.
“This felt like a slap in the face to me,” she said. “As a young woman who has used the girls’ bathroom my entire life, I was now being asked to step aside. It didn’t feel fair. It didn’t feel respectful. It felt like my concerns, and the concerns of other girls, were being overlooked.”
Ledesma, who has attended Esperanza since her freshman year, said the incident stripped away the sense of safety she once felt at school.
“Everyone deserves dignity,” she said. “But dignity cannot come at the cost of someone else’s sense of safety. We must find a solution that protects the rights and feelings of all students, not just some.”
Eddie Ledesma, her brother, said it’s hard to watch his sister struggle.
“I want her and all the other girls here to feel safe in a place [that] should be private,” he said. “This isn’t about hate. It’s about respect.”
Sonja Shaw, Chino Valley Unified school board president and a parental rights advocate, said at the walkout that because gender ideology has been normalized to the point where girls are told to sacrifice their privacy, safety, and dignity to accommodate boys in restrooms, the fight to protect girls has become a nationwide effort.
“This isn’t progress. This is regression. This is hate on girls,” she said. “This is the hill that we will die on to protect our kids. We are done. We’re not playing these games.”
If California continues to push gender ideology in schools, the problem will only get worse, she said.
“We have allowed radicals and special interests to push this madness, and too many officials have stayed silent or defended policies that put children at risk.”
Shaw said via text message to The Epoch Times following the press conference that “it’s not just time to consider withholding federal funding, it’s already time to act.”
The governor, state legislators, California Interscholastic Federation, and “too many school boards,” she said, have made it very clear they’re not budging on this issue.
“Title IX was written to protect girls, not erase them,” Shaw said. “If schools and states refuse to comply with that, then federal funding should be pulled.”
President Donald Trump’s executive orders recognize two sexes—male and female—and make it clear that only females belong in girls’ and women’s sports and in female bathrooms and locker rooms.
“‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity,’” read Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
“‘Gender identity’ reflects a fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum, that does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.”
The president also signed an executive order titled “Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports” in February.
The two orders reversed Biden-era Title IX policies and reinstated regulations from Trump’s first term as president. The back-and-forth changes in regulations have led to legal disputes about Title IX interpretation and enforcement.
The Trump administration on Sept. 30 warned of legal action against the Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota State High School League for allegedly failing to comply with Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs.
In June, the U.S. Department of Education concluded its Title IX investigations into the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation for allegations of discrimination against women and girls on the basis of sex. In both cases, the California Department of Education and the Interscholastic Federation were found to be in violation, and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the Trump administration would “relentlessly enforce Title IX protections for women and girls.”
The California Department of Education has authority over California Interscholastic Federation, which oversees 1.8 million high school students and more than 750,000 student-athletes, according to the DOJ.
In July, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched a lawsuit against California, alleging the state’s laws promoting transgender athletes violate Title IX by depriving girls of equal athletic opportunities.
“California is on the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of history,” U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said in a statement. “Women deserve dignity, respect, and an equal opportunity to compete on their own sports teams. The time for talk is over. California must comply with Title IX and end its civil rights violations against women.”
Tony Hoang, executive director of Equality California, an LGBT civil rights group, said in June that the federal education department’s findings were “a dangerous distortion of Title IX and a direct attack on transgender youth in California.”
“Let’s be clear: this isn’t about fairness in sports and never has been — it’s about a federal administration weaponizing civil rights laws to target transgender students and force California to comply with their hateful anti-transgender agenda,” Hoang wrote in a statement. “Transgender youth belong in our schools, on our teams, and in our communities — without apology and without exception.”
The governor’s office did not respond to an inquiry by publication time.
In his own podcast aired in March, Newsom told his guest, conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated last month at a college campus in Utah, that allowing men to compete in women’s sports is “deeply unfair.”
Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener praised Newsom for his past efforts to defend and support people in the LGBT community and criticized the governor for the remark.
The governor has since discussed fairness in sports, while opposing federal attempts to roll back state laws and policies.
