Official fired during Trump's first term appointed president of embattled U.S. Institute of Peace
A senior State Department official who was fired as a speechwriter during President Donald Trump 's first term and has a history of incendiary statements has been appointed to lead the embattled U.S. Institute of Peace.
The move to install Darren Beattie as the institute's new acting president is seen as the latest step in the administration's efforts to dismantle the embattled organization, which was founded as an independent, non-profit think tank. It is funded by Congress to promote peace and prevent and end conflicts across the globe. The battle is currently being played out in court.
Beattie, who currently serves as the under secretary for public diplomacy at the State Department and will continue on in that role, was fired during Trump's first term after CNN reported that he had spoken at a 2016 conference attended by white nationalists. He defended the speech he delivered as containing nothing objectionable.
A former academic who taught at Duke University, Beattie also founded a right-wing website that shared conspiracies about the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and has a long history of posting inflammatory statements on social media.
'Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work,' he wrote on October 2024. 'Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men.'
A State Department official confirmed Beattie's appointment by the USIP board of directors, which currently includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. '(W)e look forward to seeing him advance President Trump's America First agenda in this new role,' they said.
The USPI has been embroiled in turmoil since Trump moved to dismantle it shortly after taking office as part of his broader effort to shrink the size of the federal government and eliminate independent agencies.
Trump issued an executive order in February that targeted the organization and three other agencies for closure. The first attempt by the Department of Government Efficiency, formerly under the command of tech billionaire Elon Musk, to take over its headquarters led to a dramatic standoff.
Members of Musk's group returned days later with the FBI and Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police to help them gain entry.
The administration fired most of the institute's board, followed by the mass firing of nearly all of its 300 employees in what they called 'the Friday night massacre.'
The institute and many of its board members sued the Trump administration in March, seeking to prevent their removal and to prevent DOGE from taking over the institute's operations. DOGE transferred administrative oversight of the organization's headquarters and assets to the General Services Administration that weekend.
District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell overturned those actions in May, concluding that Trump was outside his authority in firing the board and its acting president and that, therefore, all subsequent actions were also moot.
Her ruling allowed the institute to regain control of its headquarters in a rare victory for the agencies and organizations that have been caught up in the Trump administration's downsizing. The employees were rehired, although many did not return to work because of the complexity of restarting operations.
They received termination orders — for the second time, however, — after an appeals court stayed Howell's order.
Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the U.S. Institute of Peace's request for a hearing of the full court to lift the stay of a three-judge panel in June. That stay led to the organization turning its headquarters back over to the Trump Administration.
In a statement, George Foote, former counsel for the institute, said Beattie's appointment 'flies in the face of the values at the core of USIP's work and America's commitment to working respectfully with international partners' and also called it 'illegal under Judge Howell's May 19 decision.'
'We are committed to defending that decision against the government's appeal. We are confident that we will succeed on the merits of our case, and we look forward to USIP resuming its essential work in Washington, D.C. and in conflict zones around the world,' he said.
By Gary Fields And Jill Colvin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
a minute ago
- CTV News
Trump's demand for Washington NFL team name change ignores years of psychological data, experts say
Native American leaders protest against the Redskins team name and logo outside U.S. Bank Stadium before an NFL football game between the Minnesota Vikings and the Washington Redskins in Minneapolis on Oct. 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Bruce Kluckhohn, File) U.S. President Donald Trump is threatening to hold up a new stadium deal if Washington's NFL team did not restore its name to a racial slur, despite decades of psychological research showing the negative mental health impacts of Native American mascots. The president is demanding a private company change its name to something that researchers have linked to a variety of negative mental health outcomes, particularly for children, said Mark Macarro, president of the National Congress of American Indians. The organization has been pushing back on stereotypes of Native Americans since the 1950s, including Native sports mascots. 'This is a big reminder with this administration that we're going to take some backward steps,' Macarro said. 'We have our studies, we have our receipts, and we can demonstrate that this causes real harm.' More than two decades of research on Native mascots have shown they lead to heightened rates of depression, self-harm, substance abuse and suicidal ideation among Indigenous peoples, and those impacts are the greatest on children. Citing this data, the American Psychological Association has been recommending the retirement of Native mascots since 2001. The president believes that franchises who changed their names to 'pander to the Woke Left' should immediately restore their original names,' White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement to The Associated Press. 'Thanks to President Trump, the days of political correctness and cancel culture are over,' he said. Some teams change names while others resist Under pressure from decades of activism, the Washington Redskins — a racial slur and arguably the most egregious example — retired the name in 2020, eventually settling on the Commanders. Later that year, the Cleveland Indians changed its name to the Guardians. Two major league teams, the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs and the NHL's Chicago Blackhawks, continue to resist calls to change their names. The Chiefs have banned fans from wearing headdresses or face paint meant to depict Native Americans at games but has resisted prohibiting the use of the 'tomahawk chop', which critics have long called derogatory. More than 1,500 grade schools across the country — a decrease over the past few years — still use Native mascots, according to the National Congress of American Indians, using names like 'Savages' as well as the slur that Trump aims to bring back to the Washington team. Experts say Native mascots reinforce racial bias Native American people, activists, and leaders have been asking for the retirement of Native mascots for generations. Popular arguments defending the mascots have been that they 'honour' Native people or that it simply boiled down to people being 'offended,' said Steph Cross, a professor of psychology and researcher at the University of Oklahoma and a citizen of the Comanche Nation. But now we have decades of data that agrees on the negative mental health impacts, she said. 'Being offended is not even really the problem. That's a symptom,' Cross said. She noted that Native mascots aren't just harmful to Indigenous peoples, they also reinforce racial prejudices among non-Natives, including people who will work directly with Native people like health care professionals and teachers. 'I think about these people who are going to be working with Native children, whether they realize that or not, and how they may unintentionally have these biases,' Cross said. Stephanie Fryberg, a professor at Northwestern University, who is a member of the Tulalip Tribes and one of the country's leading researchers on Native mascots, said, 'The ultimate impact, whether conscious or unconscious, is bias in American society.' Her work has also shown Native mascots increase the risk of real psychological harm, especially for young Native people. 'Honoring Native peoples means ending dehumanization in both imagery and policy,' she said. 'Indian Country needs meaningful investment, respect, and the restoration of federal commitments, not more distractions or excuses for inaction.' Several states pass Native mascot bans In recent years, several states — including Maine, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and New York — have passed laws or issued directives that ban or require districts to change Native mascots. A law prohibiting them in Illinois stalled this year in the state Senate. The Trump administration has interjected into other efforts to change Native mascots. This month, the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into a Long Island public school district working to retire its Native American-themed mascot. 'The Department of Education has been clear with the state of New York: it is neither legal nor right to prohibit Native American mascots and logos while celebrating European and other cultural imagery in schools,' said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. When it comes to grade schools specifically, the negative impacts on children's mental health is compounded by the fact that U.S. history standards largely ignore Indigenous history and rarely frame Native Americans as modern people, said Sarah Shear, a professor and researcher at the University of Washington. In 2015, she was part of a study that found 87% of schools in the U.S. teach about Native Americans in only a pre-1900 context. That hasn't improved much in the decade since the study, Shear said. Most curriculum also doesn't present the arguments against harmful stereotypes, like Native Mascots. 'Just on the standards documents alone,' Shear said, 'I'm not surprised that Trump and other folks continue to advocate that these mascots are celebratory when they're not.' Graham Lee Brewer, The Associated Press
CTV News
2 hours ago
- CTV News
U.S. politics threaten to complicate Canada's co-hosting of 2026 World Cup
U.S. President Donald Trump, centre right, and FIFA president Gianni Infantino, centre left, hand Chelsea's Reece James (24) the championship trophy following the Club World Cup final soccer match between Chelsea and PSG at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., Sunday, July 13, 2025. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) OTTAWA — With less than a year to go until the 2026 World Cup, political tensions and U.S. policy threaten to pose problems as Canada, the United States and Mexico prepare to co-host the tournament. Next year's FIFA World Cup will be the biggest ever, with the three countries hosting a record 48 teams. Between June 11 and July 19, they will play 104 matches, most of them in the U.S. With millions of fans expected to cross borders to attend the games, U.S. President Donald Trump's harsh immigration policies — which include travel bans on some countries, immigration raids and mass deportations — are generating anxiety. 'This is all being driven by the United States. And we're entirely the guilty party here,' said Victor Matheson, a professor at College of Holy Cross in Massachusetts who specializes in sports economics. 'You could have significant immigration problems with fans and players going across borders.' The U.S. has travel bans in place for 12 countries and restrictions in place for seven, and is considering banning travellers from another 36 countries. Though there are exemptions for athletes, staff and families, the unpredictability of Trump's administration means no one knows for certain what kind of rules might be in place by the time the tournament starts. Economist Andrew Zimbalist, who wrote a book on the economics of hosting the World Cup, said Trump has the ability to make it difficult for people to travel, but it's not clear whether he will actually do so. 'I think probably Trump himself might not have the answers because … he responds very impetuously to changes in his environment,' he said. Concerns about visas or political opposition to Trump might lead some soccer fans to decide not to attend at all, while others opt to attend the games in Canada instead, Zimbalist suggested. But he also pointed out that the quarter, semifinals and final are all taking place in the U.S. A spokesperson for Canadian Heritage said Canada could see a million international visitors during the tournament. 'Given the tri-national nature of the event, it is anticipated that international and domestic travellers will move back and forth between Canada and the United States. The focus will continue to be on the flow of movement, the safety of travellers and the security of the borders,' the spokesperson said. A spokesperson for the Canada Border Services Agency said the agency is working closely with federal government departments, host cities and FIFA 'in the safety and security planning for this international event.' Matheson said fans — particularly those from countries that have found themselves in Trump's crosshairs — have good reasons to be worried. 'I would be very concerned about planning a vacation that has you travelling from Mexico or from Canada into the United States and back. I don't think that you can guarantee that vacation of a lifetime is actually going to be there for you to actually take,' he said. He said it's one thing to be denied entry, another to end up in jail and deported — potentially to a prison in El Salvador. 'No one wants to go to the World Cup to watch some soccer games and then end up in jail,' he said. Trump's moves to impose tariffs on much of the world, including Canada, could also affect the World Cup. Matheson offered the example of someone who makes jerseys for a country's team who would want to ship those jerseys across the border with the team. 'Tariffs make that type of inventory management pretty challenging,' he said. Tim Elcombe is a professor at Wilfrid Laurier University whose areas of expertise include sports, politics and international affairs. He said 'there was a sense that having the event in Canada, the United States and Mexico would almost be a bit of a calming of the political waters,' as the cup returned to Western countries. Instead, he said, the 2026 tournament may be even more politically charged than the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Canada is co-hosting one of world's biggest sporting events with a country whose president has instigated a trade war and threatened annexation. Canadians have cut travel to the U.S. and stopped buying American products — and it's not clear what all of that might mean for the World Cup. While Vancouver and Toronto will host some games, 'really this is an American-centric competition,' Elcombe said. 'So how will Canadians feel about this? Will we get behind it? Will it become the event I think they were hoping it would be?' In early July, labour and human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, wrote to FIFA president Gianni Infantino to say U.S. policies under Trump pose a 'serious threat' to individuals, especially non-citizens. The letter accused FIFA of ignoring 'the clear evidence of the significant deterioration of the rights climate in the United States.' Elcombe said while the United States is likely to take the brunt of scrutiny, Canada is not immune. 'Canada is going to have to be prepared for a very critical eye in terms of focus on some of the issues in Canada from a human rights perspective, because I think they will be exposed,' he said, citing Canada's relationship with Indigenous Peoples as one example. MacIntosh Ross, a fellow at the Scott McCain and Leslie McLean Centre for Sport, Business and Health at Saint Mary's University, said Canada should put pressure on the U.S. government 'to make sure that things happen in a safe or as safe a manner as possible.' 'The Canadian organizers and the Canadian government need to be very clear about their expectations for their partners in this World Cup and reiterate them and state them over and over again,' he said. Elcombe noted Infantino, who has 'very much established himself as a friend and supporter of President Trump,' could be a key player in determining how the coming months unfold. It's difficult to predict what Trump might do, Zimbalist said. If there are political issues in the United States that he wants to distract people from, 'you can see him doing crazier and crazier things internationally to get people's minds off of what's actually happening.' But Trump also has shown that he cares about the World Cup and looking good as he hosts the tournament. 'I think he does care about image and he does care about being on the world stage,' Zimbalist said. 'So I can see that being a significant deterrent, actually.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 27, 2025. Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press
National Post
3 hours ago
- National Post
J.D. Tuccille: Lower taxes are the best thing about the one, big, beautiful bill
Article content By contrast, the bottom 50 percent of earners paid 3 percent of federal income taxes on 11.5 percent of AGI. The U.S. tax system is very progressive; the more you make, the bigger the mugging by government. Article content In 2023, Pew Research crunched the numbers and found that 'all groups of taxpayers with $1 million or more in adjusted gross income (AGI) had average effective tax rates of more than 25 per cent.' On the other hand, 'tens of millions of Americans owed little or no federal income tax' because of low income and refundable tax credits. For those earning less than $30,000, the average effective tax rate was 1.5 per cent before taking tax credits into account. Because of those credits, millions of people actually get money from the government after filing taxes, effectively giving them a negative tax rate (-3.33 per cent for those earning $25,000 to $30,000, after credits are considered). Article content In fact, continues Pew, 'since 2000, there has been a downward trend in average effective tax rates for all but the richest taxpayers.' Article content As for those paying the lowest possible rates, adds the Tax Policy Center, in 2025 '40 per cent of households, or about 76 million 'tax units,' will pay no federal individual income tax.' About 70 per cent of those paying no income tax earn less than $75,000, and 45 per cent earn less than $40,000. The ranks of those paying no taxes were expected to shrink to 33.5 per cent by 2035 if the TCJA was not extended. Article content That doesn't mean that 40 per cent of the country is paying no taxes at all. Most still get forced to pay in to the federal Social Security and Medicare schemes just like everybody else, even if they prefer to make their own plans. And many states and some localities impose their own income taxes along with sales taxes. Of course, we all have to pay the tariffs on imports imposed by the federal government. Article content The U.S. isn't alone in the progressivity of its tax system. According to the Fraser Institute, in Canada, 'the top 20 per cent of income-earning families pay nearly two-thirds (64.5 per cent) of the country's personal income taxes and more than half (56.9 per cent) of total taxes' while earning 47.8 per cent of total income. Meanwhile, 'the bottom 20 per cent of income-earning families are estimated to pay 0.7 per cent of all federal and provincial personal income taxes and 1.9 per cent of total taxes in Canada' while earning 4.8 per cent of total income. For the top 20 per cent of Canadian earners, the average personal income tax rate is 22.8 per cent; for the bottom 20 per cent it's 2.4 per cent. (Canada's taxes, overall, are higher than those in the U.S. Its income tax burden is the fifth highest among nations in the OECD while the U.S. is 23rd.) Article content Article content That doesn't stop people in both countries from complaining that the wealthy aren't paying their 'fair share.' But it does raise the question of just what 'fair share' is supposed to mean when 40 per cent of income taxes are paid by the top 1 per cent of earners and 61 per cent are paid by the top 5 per cent — both numbers much larger than the proportion of total income that's being taxed. It's rather obvious that 'fair' is just an expression of envy and a euphemism for 'take it all to make me feel better.' Article content But envy isn't something that should be indulged in a free society. And, if we can find a way to lower taxes for everybody, that's a great way to encourage people to work for their own benefit. Article content Again, there's plenty to object to in the OBBB. The fact that, like so much legislation these days, it was turned into a grab bag of unrelated items with an up-or-down vote on the whole mess required is just the beginning. Projections that it will send the deficit and debt soaring also raise concerns. Article content
