Archive

2025

Browsing

As the Trump administration and Republicans across the country push to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies across the board, the executive director of a top consumer advocacy group spoke to Fox News Digital about what companies and institutions are doing to skirt those efforts.

‘Over the last few months, we’ve sort of seen a phase shift in the ways that they’re trying to keep this DEI grift going,’ Consumers’ Research Executive Director Will Hild told Fox News Digital about companies, organizations, hospitals and other entities that are attempting to rebrand DEI and environmental, social and governance in the Trump era. 

‘At first, they just pushed back on, tried to defend DEI itself, but when that became so obvious that what DEI really was was anti-White, anti-Asian, sometimes anti-Jewish discrimination in hiring and promotion, they abandoned that,’ Hild said. ‘Now what they’re trying to do is simply change the terminology that has become so toxic to their brand. So we’re seeing a lot of companies move from having departments of DEI, for example, to ‘departments of belonging’ or ‘departments of inclusivity.’’

Several major companies have publicly distanced themselves from DEI in recent months as the new administration signs executive orders eliminating the practice while making the argument that meritocracy should be the focus. 

However, FOX Business exclusively reported in April on Consumers’ Research warning that some businesses appear to be rebranding the same efforts rather than eliminating them. 

‘It is the exact same toxic nonsense under a new wrapper, and they’re just hoping to extend the grift because a lot of these people, I would say most of the people working in DEI are useless,’ Hild told Fox News Digital. 

‘They are mediocrities who have managed to get very high-level positions that they’re not qualified for by running this DEI grift, and they’re desperate,’ he continued. ‘They can’t just move into running logistics for Amazon because that takes actual competence and intelligence and if you’re in a DEI department, you probably don’t have either of those things. So they are desperate to keep this grift going so they can justify their own existence. So they’re changing it into a new wrapper.’

Hild, who spoke to Fox News Digital at the State Financial Officers Foundation conference in Orlando, Florida, also explained some of the other issues Consumers’ Research is focused on going forward, including fighting ‘woke’ hospitals in three different areas.

‘One is net zero pledges and activities that raise costs for consumers, patients having to pay more because these hospitals are investing millions, sometimes tens of millions of dollars, into green boondoggle projects that have nothing to do with the treatment of patients and the improvement of their health, but they do raise prices,’ Hild said.

Secondly, Hild said that his group is concerned about DEI quotas at hospitals.

Hild explained that the third and ‘worst’ issue is transgender surgeries and procedures being forced onto children.

‘Pushing of radical left transgender ideology onto kids, and not just pushing it ideologically and rhetorically, but pushing it physically, and what I mean by that is the injection of damaging, lifelong damaging hormones into children to, quote, unquote, change their sex, which is impossible, and even worse, the actual surgical application, removal and mutilation of their genitals, which is a grotesque violation of the Hippocratic Oath,’ Hild said.

Consumers’ Research has been actively involved in launching advertising campaigns against hospitals across the United States, including a recent campaign against Henry Ford Health in Michigan, calling out what it says are situations where hospitals are putting ‘politics over patients.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Institute of Peace, writing in a ruling that the removal of its board members and the takeover of its headquarters by members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are actions that are ‘null and void.’ 

The response this week from U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell comes after the Institute filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in March calling for ‘the immediate intervention of this Court to stop Defendants from completing the unlawful dismantling of the Institute and irreparably impairing Plaintiffs’ ability to perform their vital peace promotion and conflict resolution work as tasked by Congress.’ 

‘The Administration removed the Institute’s leadership, including plaintiff Board members and its president in contravention of statutory limitations, and had personnel from a newly created federal office, called the Department of Government Efficiency, forcibly take over the Institute’s headquarters on March 17,’ Howell wrote in her ruling. ‘With a newly installed USIP president, the Administration then handed off USIP’s property for no consideration and abruptly terminated nearly all of its staff and activities around the world.’

‘Congress’s restrictions on the President’s removal power of USIP Board members are squarely constitutional, and the President and his Administration’s acts to the contrary are unlawful and ultra vires. The actions that have occurred since then – at the direction of the President to reduce USIP to its ‘statutory minimums’ – including the removal of USIP’s president, his replacement by officials affiliated with DOGE, the termination of nearly all of USIP’s staff, and the transfer of USIP property to the General Services Administration, were thus effectuated by illegitimately-installed leaders who lacked legal authority to take these actions, which must therefore be declared null and void,’ she added. 

The Institute of Peace is an independent, national institution funded by Congress that was established in 1984 under the Reagan administration to promote peace and diplomacy on the international stage.  

‘Congress has endorsed USIP’s important work by continuing to fund the Institute through appropriations bills signed by seven different Presidents from both major political parties, including the current President during his first term in office,’ Howell said in the ruling.  

‘In a drastic and abrupt change of course, within the first month of his second term, President Trump unilaterally decided that USIP is ‘unnecessary,’ issuing Executive Order 14217 to this effect, and then his Administration rushed through actions, including removal of Board members, to reach the professed goal of reducing all of USIP’s operations and personnel to the bare minimum to perform only mandated statutory tasks, while ignoring the broader statutory goals set out for this organization to fulfill,’ she also said. 

Ultimately, Howell concluded, the Trump administration’s actions ‘represented a gross usurpation of power and a way of conducting government affairs that unnecessarily traumatized the committed leadership and employees of USIP, who deserved better.’

The White House did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

In March, it said the Trump administration gutted the Institute of Peace of ‘rogue bureaucrats’ who held a tense standoff with a DOGE team that required police intervention. 

‘Rogue bureaucrats will not be allowed to hold agencies hostage,’ White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said at the time. ‘The Trump administration will enforce the president’s executive authority and ensure his agencies remain accountable to the American people.’ 

The administration now has 30 days to file an appeal to the ruling.

‘The United States Institute of Peace has existed for 40 years on a $50 million annual budget, but failed to deliver peace,’ Kelly told the Associated Press. ‘President Trump is right to reduce failed, useless entities like USIP to their statutory minimum, and this rogue judge’s attempt to impede on the separation of powers will not be the last say on the matter.’ 

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Marvin Harrison Jr. is looking a little different entering Year 2.

“I definitely put on some pounds,” Harrison said to reporters during Monday’s press conference at the Cardinals offseason workouts. “I added some muscle to my body.”

A bulked-up Harrison is hoping the added muscle will help him during his sophomore season.

“Football is a physical game. A lot of contested situations,” Harrison explained. “As well as you got to receive contested catch situations, run after the catch and things like that.”

Expectations were high for Harrison as soon as he stepped foot in the NFL. He was the first wide receiver selected in the 2024 NFL Draft when the Cardinals picked him No. 4 overall. He compiled 62 receptions, 885 receiving yards and eight touchdowns as a rookie.

His numbers were certainly good. But they fell short of the top wide receiver prospect expectations attached to him. He finished fifth among rookies in receptions and receiving yards.

There were times where Cardinals quarterback Kyler Murray and Harrison didn’t appear on the same page, which contributed to him tallying only two games of over 100 receiving yards in his first year. Arizona’s passing offense ranked in the bottom half of the league and the club finished the regular season with an 8-9 record.

“There’s always room for improvement,” Harrison said. “For me, every season no matter how it goes, I’m always looking to improve and get better for next season.”

Harrison told reporters he has another level he can unlock this year as he’s grown more accustomed to the NFL.

“I definitely do have a switch I can switch on more probably next year,” Harrison said. “I think that just comes with being comfortable playing the game, playing at the speed of the NFL and things like that.”

Cardinals head coach Jonathan Gannon is certainly of the mindset Harrison is going to make a leap in Year 2. Gannon appeared on SiriusXM’s Mad Dog Sports Radio this offseason and said he’s “excited” for the step Harrison takes in 2025.

‘When the staff is in place, the jump from Year 1 to Year 2, I think that’s where guys make a huge jump,’ Gannon said. ‘This guy played unbelievable ball for us, but if you talk to him, he’d be the first to tell you, like, ‘I need to get better at these couple things,’ and, man, he has went to work on them. He has went to work on them. He looks awesome out there right now. I’m really excited to see where his game goes.’

Gannon continued, ‘I’m not gonna speak truth into the universe but just wait until this guy plays this year.’

The Cardinals have finished last in the NFC West in two of the past three years. Arizona hasn’t finished with a winning record since 2021. They certainly can use a breakout year from their No. 1 wide receiver.

Follow USA TODAY Sports’ Tyler Dragon on X @TheTylerDragon.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

The Edmonton Oilers and Dallas Stars are facing each other in the NHL Western Conference finals for the second year in a row, starting Wednesday night in Dallas.

In the Eastern Conference finals, the Florida Panthers and Carolina Hurricanes will meet in a rematch of the 2023 series. That series will open on Tuesday in Raleigh, North Carolina.

That leaves four possible matchups in the Stanley Cup Final: Stars vs. Hurricanes, Stars vs. Panthers, Oilers vs. Hurricanes or Oilers vs. Panthers, last year’s championship round.

Which matchup would be the best one to watch? All have their merits. USA TODAY ranks the four possibilities for the 2025 Stanley Cup Final:

1. Edmonton Oilers vs. Florida Panthers

Why not a rematch? Last year’s Stanley Cup Final certainly was entertaining, at least by the end. Florida won the first three games and appeared poised to sweep, only to be blown out 8-1 in Game 4. The Oilers forced a Game 7, but the Panthers found their game and won 2-1 at home for their first Stanley Cup title.

Both teams are filled with stars and are deeper than they were last season. Edmonton and Florida have the top offenses of the four remaining teams. Plus, the storylines abound. Can the Panthers repeat, and would we call them a dynasty if they do after three consecutive trips to the final? Will the Oilers become the first Canadian team since the 1993 Montreal Canadiens to win the Stanley Cup? Will Edmonton’s Connor McDavid, last year’s playoff MVP, and Leon Draisaitl win their first championships? The Oilers would have home-ice advantage this time.

2. Dallas Stars vs. Carolina Hurricanes

Want some fresher faces? This one works. Dallas was last in the final in 2020, Carolina in 2006. Plus, there is the Mikko Rantanen factor. He already beat the Colorado Avalanche this postseason after that team surprisingly traded him to the Hurricanes earlier in the season. He would have a chance to knock off another former team because the Hurricanes dealt him to the Stars when they feared he wouldn’t sign in Carolina. He has been a force in the playoffs with a league-best nine goals and 19 points. The Hurricanes, though, have been good at neutralizing other teams’ stars. Carolina’s Andrei Svechnikov is right behind Rantanen with eight goals.

3. Dallas Stars vs. Florida Panthers

These teams were well-represented at the 4 Nations Face-Off, so there is top-end talent. The Finnish Olympic team certainly would be paying attention. These teams also have the best remaining power plays. Panthers coach Paul Maurice and Stars coach Peter DeBoer are friends and are highly quotable. We would want this to go to Game 7 because DeBoer is 9-0 in winner-take-all games and Maurice is 6-0.

4. Edmonton Oilers vs. Carolina Hurricanes

This would be the top remaining offense (Edmonton) vs. the best defense (Carolina), though the Hurricanes’ style isn’t always the most exciting to watch. This would also be a rematch of the 2006 Stanley Cup Final. The Hurricanes led that series 3-1, but the eighth-seeded Oilers fought back before Carolina won in Game 7. Rod Brind’Amour was the first player to lift the Stanley Cup as Hurricanes captain. Will he get to lift the trophy for the first time as a coach?

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

In reality, Rafael Devers is among the least of the Boston Red Sox’s worries.

Devers’ reticence – or flat-out refusal – to move to first base after he agreed to a shift to designated hitter created plenty of headlines and prompted owner John Henry to fly to Kansas City and talk it out with his $313.5 million slugger.

Unfortunately for the Red Sox, Henry didn’t pack any pitching reinforcements on the plane.

Since that summit, Devers has been nearly unstoppable – with 15 hits in 34 at-bats, three homers and 13 RBIs in nine games. But the Red Sox are slowly slipping from shouting distance of the first-place New York Yankees, with 11 losses in their past 17 games to fall six spots in USA TODAY Sports’ power rankings.

It might have been 12 losses in 17 games if not for Devers, who saved them with his first career walk-off homer against Atlanta on Saturday.

A few hours later in the series finale, he erased an early deficit 3-0 with a grand slam. But the Red Sox gave up that lead and more, as they’ve done often lately. In losing five of its last six, Boston has twice given up 10 runs in a game and 14 in another. Their rotation ERA now languishes at 4.28, 22nd in the majors.

And nowadays, that means it doesn’t much matter how many runs the Red Sox score.

A look at our updated rankings:

1. Los Angeles Dodgers (-)

Feeling the change of the guard: Stalwarts Chris Taylor, Austin Barnes cut as Dalton Rushing steps on the scene.

2. Detroit Tigers (+2)

Tigers win Jackson Jobe’s first eight starts, setting franchise record.

3. New York Mets (-1)

Edwin Diaz, now 10-for-10 in save chances, ramps his fastball back up to 99 mph.

4. Philadelphia Phillies (+5)

At least Jose Alvarado’s PED suspension came well before the trade deadline.

5. San Diego Padres (-2)

Almost mathematically eliminated in the Vedder Cup.

6. San Francisco Giants (-)

Wilmer Flores, RBI machine, wins epic battle against Mason Miller for walk-off walk.

7. Chicago Cubs (-1)

PCA vs. the White Sox was no match: 8-for-14, nine RBIs, four extra-base hits.

8. New York Yankees (-1)

Jonathan Loaisiga’s return a nice boost for bullpen.

9. Seattle Mariners (-)

There’s a new ace in town and his name is Bryan Woo.

10. Cleveland Guardians (-)

Shane Bieber getting closer to a rehab assignment.

11. Minnesota Twins (+7)

You win 13 in a row, you jump 14 spots in the standings. Them’s the rules.

12. St. Louis Cardinals (-)

Started the year 1-10 on the road; just finished 7-2 road trip.

13. Kansas City Royals (-2)

Those heavy footsteps you hear? Jac Caglianone is one step from the big leagues.

14. Arizona Diamondbacks (+1)

Will be more than halfway done with Dodgers after three-game road set this week.

15. Houston Astros (-1)

Thirteen come-from-behind wins.

16. Texas Rangers (+3)

Evan Carter’s injury woes continue with quad strain.

17. Cincinnati Reds (+3)

Is Will Benson happening? He slams five homers in four games.

18. Atlanta Braves (+3)

They climb over .500, just in time to welcome back Spencer Strider and Ronald Acuña Jr.

19. Boston Red Sox (-6)

Kristian Campbell sliding to first to create room for Marcelo Mayer would be a helluva fix.

20. Toronto Blue Jays (-4)

Tigers show how far they have to go to be playoff team

21. Milwaukee Brewers (-4)

Jackson Chourio dropped to sixth in order, promptly strikes out four times.

22. Tampa Bay Rays (-)

Chandler Simpson survives unsettling slide at home plate.

23. Athletics (-)

Yolo County vs. San Francisco doesn’t quite have the same ring.

24. Washington Nationals (-)

Michael Soroka wins first game since July 2023.

25. Los Angeles Angels (+1)

First three-game sweep over Dodgers since 2010.

26. Baltimore Orioles (-1)

15-30 record matches 2019 start, when they lost 108 games.

27. Miami Marlins (-)

Sandy Alcantara drops his sixth straight decision, a career high.

28. Pittsburgh Pirates (-)

Shut out in eight of their 32 losses.

29. Chicago White Sox (-)

.University of Tampa product Jordan Leasure racking up 12.9 strikeouts per nine.

30. Colorado Rockies (-)

8-38, a pace that would knock the White Sox out of the record books.

The USA TODAY app gets you to the heart of the news — fastDownload for award-winning coverage, crosswords, audio storytelling, the eNewspaper and more.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

As she ran for the White House in the 2024 election cycle, Nikki Haley made her calls for ‘new generational leadership’ a key component of her Republican presidential campaign.

And front and center from day 1 of her campaign as the former South Carolina governor and former United Nations ambassador declared her candidacy in February 2023 was her call for ‘mandatory mental competency tests for politicians over 75 years old.’

As Haley challenged then-76-year-old former President Donald Trump for the 2024 GOP nomination in hopes of eventually facing off in the general election against then-80-year-old President Joe Biden, the proposal became one of the most visible and at times controversial parts of her campaign stump speech.

Haley faced charges of ageism from a host of politicians opposed to the idea, including a now-83-year-old Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who at the time called her idea ‘absurd.’

While Haley’s campaign took off, and she ended up being the last Republican candidate standing against Trump during last year’s primaries, she eventually bowed out of the race in March 2024 as Trump marched toward clinching the presidential nomination.

Fast-forward to today, and long-standing questions about Biden’s physical and mental fitness – and whether Democrats should have more forcefully urged him to bow out of the 2024 race – haven’t gone away; they’re front and center.

This as Biden’s condition is once again making headlines, courtesy of excerpts from a new book being released this week, ‘Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,’ which offers claims of a White House cover-up of the then-president’s apparent cognitive decline.

Additionally, last week’s leaked audio of Biden’s 2023 interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, in which the then-president appears to suffer memory lapses, is also fueling the conversation.

Hur, who investigated whether Biden years earlier had improperly stored classified documents, made major headlines early last year when he decided not to charge Biden but described the then-president as an ‘elderly man with a poor memory.’

Last week’s developments were followed by Sunday’s blockbuster announcement that Biden was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer that had spread to his bones.

The news, while eliciting sympathy from both sides of the political aisle, is unlikely to sidetrack the current firestorm over the former president’s mental acuity.

‘While the media may have been shocked by Nikki’s call for mental competency tests, Americans never were,’ a source in Haley’s political orbit told Fox News. ‘It was common sense. Nikki always believed our leaders should be completely transparent and remember who they serve: the American people. After a yearslong cover-up, those who hid President Biden’s mental decline must finally acknowledge what Nikki and the American people always knew to be true.’

Haley, who was 51 when she announced her candidacy in 2023, reupped her calls for a mental competency test throughout her campaign.

In January last year, during the heat of the primary battle, Haley pointed to some verbal stumbles by Trump on the campaign trail.

‘He’s not what he was in 2016. He has declined. That’s a fact,’ Haley said at the time.

Trump repeatedly fired back as he touted acing a cognitive test he took five years earlier and said, ‘I think I’m a lot sharper than her.’

A month later, after the release of Hur’s written report regarding Biden’s mental acuity, Haley said, ‘Joe Biden can’t remember major events in his life, like when he was vice president or when his son died.’

‘That is sad, but it will be even sadder if we have a person in the White House who is not mentally up to the most important job in the world,’ she added as she reiterated her calls for Biden to take a mental competency test ‘immediately.’

Haley, in a Fox News op-ed in May 2023, spelled out the specific test she recommended for politicians over age 75.

‘The Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test is a widely used tool for detecting cognitive decline,’ Haley wrote at the time.

And she elaborated, ‘This is not a qualification for office. Failing a mental competency test would not result in removal. It is about transparency. Voters deserve to know whether those who are making major decisions about war and peace, taxation and budgets, schools and safety can pass a very basic mental exam.’

Veteran political scientist Wayne Lesperance, noting the current media spotlight on Biden, said it has ‘renewed concerns many Americans have about the age and ability of our elected officials. Public service demands clarity of thought, sound judgment, and the ability to manage complex issues.’

And Lesperance, president of New England College, said ‘Americans must conclude that a fair and nonpartisan cognitive assessment, perhaps irrespective of age, is important to ensure all who seek to lead are equipped to serve with the sharpness and clarity the role requires.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Ronald Reagan would have appreciated Donald Trump’s moxie.  Stylistically, they are different but all men are different in this regard. Ideologically however, there are many similarities.

Reagan spoke out often against the political establishment. Reagan was himself anti-status quo. He was of the conservative/populist Goldwater wing of the GOP. Don’t forget, he ran against the establishment candidate, incumbent President Gerald Ford in 1976, almost beating him for the presidential nomination.

He ran again in 1980 against the establishment candidates Amb. George H.W. Bush and former Texas Gov. John Connolly, defeated them, and in so doing remade the GOP.

The president is embracing some Democratic policies in his second term’s push for a ‘golden age’ for America.

For men like Reagan and Trump, it’s always been the same: Outsiders versus insiders. British versus the Colonists. Jefferson versus Adams. Goldwater versus Rockefeller. The conservative movement versus the GOP establishment.  Delta House versus Omega House. The Jedi versus the Evil Empire.

Bill Clinton once said, ‘Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans want to fall in line.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. Democrats love power and all its abuses and fall in line behind anyone with perceived power; Republicans fall in love with ideas centered on the individual.

Republicans cherished Reagan and now Trump, because both these men have acted on their conservative ideas.

One stark example, Reagan wanted to destroy the Soviet Union which he called an ‘Evil Empire.’ He wanted to consign it to the ‘ash heap’ of history. Meanwhile the political establishment supported ‘Détente’ which was co-existence, even as the Soviets were gobbling up the rest of the world, Reagan was challenging this way of thinking.

The Berlin Wall fell as a result of Reagan’s conservative actions.

He wanted to eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy seeing them as fraudulent and wasteful. Just as Trump is now doing. The entrenched establishment supported them even as they were worthless, counter-productive and costly.

Reagan supported gay rights long before it was fashionable or accepted by the political establishment because it was about the individual.

Later, as president, Reagan was never comfortable in the trappings of Washington, often leaving for the weekend to go the Camp David or for longer trips to his ranch in Santa Barbara.

When he left Washington in January 1989, he only returned once to accept the Medal of Freedom award from President George W. Bush 43.

Reagan was wildly popular with blue-collar voters, just as Trump now is. And yes, both men had and have a tremendous sense of humor. Joe Biden? He is the butt of jokes.

The Republican Party has changed its positions on many issues over the years, whereas the Democratic Party has remained more or less constant as the pro-government party, since 1932. The GOP used to be the balanced budget, Green eyeshade party before Ronald Reagan introduced tax cuts as a canon of the party, to liberate the individual.

The party has switched back and forth on trade and other matters over the years. But in 1980, Reagan brought a cluster of issues to the party which it still embraces and Trump pursues today.

Tax cuts, federalism, strong national defense, pro-life, all centered on the importance of the individual. Reagan often said, ‘Our party must be the party of the individual.’ All these issues Donald Trump has heartily embraced.

The only issue with separates them may be trade, but Reagan also used tariffs to save Harley-Davidson from cheap Japanese imports, thus saving a cherished company.

Everything Reagan did must be judged in the shadow of the Cold War. He supported NAFTA and the Caribbean Basin Initiative as they strengthened the trading, cultural and political ties between these Western Hemisphere countries. And, for Reagan, they were a restatement of the Monroe Doctrine.

There is a small group of rabble-rouser Republicans who oppose Trump just as Reagan had his cranks and critics.

Just as all revolutionaries do.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

We’re not seeing big picture here. We’re slogging through the minutia of the college football postseason instead of dealing with the big, bad shield in the room. 

The NFL shield. 

So while college football’s power brokers are busy arguing straight seeding, first-round byes, campus sites and who will choose the expected 16-team College Football Playoff field, they’re ignoring the greatest threat to the ever-evolving system that decided a national champion. 

The NFL’s television schedule structure is in direct competition with the College Football Playoff. That means decreased ratings, and decreased growth for a sport trying to develop a new postseason format.

This season alone, critical division matchups between the Philadelphia Eagles and Washington Commanders and Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears, fall on the same Saturday as three first-round games.

No matter how important or intriguing those first-round College Football Playoff matchups prove to be, they’ll be dwarfed by critical December NFL games — just like last year’s three first-round games in the same window.

And lost television ratings and growth means lost millions from future media rights deals — the very reason university presidents blew up the original four-team CFP in the first place. 

“My hope is there are ways around it,” said Florida State athletic director Mike Alford.

Yeah, well, hope is not a plan. Leverage is. 

I’ve said it over and over, and will say it again: college football has leverage on the NFL. College football is the free minor league system for the NFL. 

If the NFL wants to keep benefiting from that free system – I don’t think this can be underscored enough, free – it’s time to treat college football as a partner. Not like old gum on the bottom of the NFL sneaker. 

There was a time not long ago that college football decided to play games on Thursday night, a unique idea that ESPN turned into a cult following. Sure enough, the NFL saw the success and large television ratings, and commandeered the night. 

NFL Thursday night games now dwarf the college football games, so much so, that college football has all but given up on big power conference games and now feeds Thursday night with a steady diet of meaningless Group of Five games.

Two years ago, the NFL sold Thursday Night games as a standalone media rights package to Amazon, and now makes a billion dollars annually from it. Yep, billion.

That’s lost revenue for college football, a sport searching for cash streams while dealing with looming revenue sharing with players. By proxy, it means lost revenue for college sports, which is dealing with a potential loss of Olympic sports teams (both men and women) because cash to support those teams is now used to pay players in revenue producing sports (football, basketball).

Yet here we are, deep into the process of what the new playoff format will look like, and we can’t see the forest for The Shield. The problem isn’t the format, the problem is the NFL. 

You know, the same NFL receiving free player development – again, free! – from college football year after year after year. 

Anyone else find it odd that college football is swimming in paradigm change over the last four seasons, in danger of the whole thing falling apart, and the NFL has been eerily quiet about the entire mess? 

Hasn’t offered support, hasn’t reached out to say, hey, since you’ve given us free player development from the time our game was invented (and will continue to do so), maybe we can hop off the Saturday of your first-round games?

Maybe we can avoid future scheduling conflicts and work with college football to grow the postseason. Instead of ignoring it.

But the NFL has no reason to acquiesce. If college football continues to provide game and practice tape whenever the NFL asks, if it continues to allow access to practice and games and everyone involved in player development during the NFL draft process, why would the NFL change anything? 

There are two ways to make the NFL move off its mark: affect its money, or player procurement. 

Here, everyone, is where college football has leverage. The NFL wants every piece of information possible on players it drafts, performing its due diligence to avoid multi-million dollar mistakes on investments.

The NCAA or CFP Board of Directors (or whoever is running the damn sport at this point), should send a letter to all 32 NFL teams. No more practice and game access to all FBS and FCS teams, no more game and practice tape, no more access to coaches and assistant coaches or anyone else connected to players — until the NFL eliminates scheduling conflicts with the CFP. 

It’s not a big ask, and frankly, there shouldn’t have to be a threat. There should be someone within college football – I nominate Nick Saban, even though he doesn’t want the job – who can call NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and speak hard truths.

The NFL isn’t your friend, it’s the greatest threat to college football’s postseason.

Do something about it. 

Matt Hayes is the senior national college football writer for USA TODAY Sports Network. Follow him on X at @MattHayesCFB. 

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

It’s been less than a month since Shedeur Sanders fell to the final day of the 2025 NFL Draft, to the surprise of many experts and fans.

The Colorado product’s slide from an expected Round 1 pick to Round 5 was the biggest shock of the event this year and a Colorado Buffaloes fan is seeking $100 million in damages from the NFL. The fan filed a lawsuit on May 7.

Nearly two weeks later, they’ve now filed an emergency motion for early and targeted discovery.

On May 19, the plaintiff – referred to as John Doe – filed this motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The reasoning for this filing was ‘the urgency, public interest, and volume of evidence likely to be in the exclusive possession of the NFL.’

The filing is requesting specific documents including:

Internal communications (emails, text messages and memos) between NFL executives, league officials, team general managers, representatives, scouts and owners relating to Sanders from Jan. 1, 2024 through May 1, 2025;
Scouting reports, internal assessments, draft boards and interview notes used by NFL teams when evaluating quarterbacks in the 2025 NFL Draft;
Audio or video recordings to team meetings, draft room communications, or NFL combine sessions involving Sanders;
Communications with third-party media outlets regarding public portrayal and narrative of Sanders prior to the NFL Draft;
All documents related to the NFL’s investigation into the prank call placed to Sanders;
Results or report of the inquiry into why Sanders’ personal phone number provided to the NFL was released to waiver wires;
The 61-page arbitration report that found evidence of collusion against black quarterbacks.

The filing states that this is urgent and essential because ‘the actions at issue have caused irreparable harm not only to Sanders’ but also to the plaintiff and ‘fans who reasonably expect fairness, integrity, and nondiscrimination.’

“We are committed to exposing the truth behind what appears to be a systematic effort to undermine Shedeur Sanders’ opportunities in the NFL,” Doe said in a statement accompanying the filing. “This motion is not just about one player; it represents a broader fight against racial discrimination and the abuse of power within one of the most influential sports leagues in the world.”

Doe also filed an argument against dismissal of complaint in frivolity, essentially an attempt to keep the court from dismissing it for lacking merit.

That argument referred to other racial discrimination cases filed against the NFL, including Trotter v. The National Football League and Flores et al. v. NFL, as well as former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s lawsuit filed in 2019.

At the time of publishing, the NFL has not responded to the lawsuit.

All the NFL news on and off the field. Sign up for USA TODAY’s 4th and Monday newsletter. 

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

The NFL is set to conduct their league meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday this week, during which they’ll vote on the fate of the controversial play made famous by the Philadelphia Eagles. Luvu doesn’t have a vote, but he certainly has a preferred outcome.

During an appearance on ‘Good Morning Football’ on Monday, the Washington Commanders’ linebacker contended that the play should be banned by the league.

“My personal opinion?  I think they should ban it,” Luvu told NFL Network’s Kyle Brandt. “But I know the argument’s going to be about, ‘Hey, you guys have to stop it. Don’t get us in short yardage,’ and whatnot.’

He went on to compare it to a rugby scrum, calling the play a cheap one, in his personal opinion.

“But it’s kind of like a cheat-code play,’ Luvu continued. ‘That’s pretty much a scrum in rugby. That’s how I kind of look at it. And we’ve got to have a scrum, too, on the other side. And the scrum is, we have a cadence where we all go at once. It’s not like you hard count and this and that, where now you’re getting us – or myself – jumping over the pile thinking that you’re going to snap the ball. That’s just my own personal opinion, and I’m going to leave it at that.”

Luvu is certainly no stranger to being on the wrong side of the ‘tush push,’ especially after the playoffs. The linebacker famously jumped over the line of scrimmage multiple times in the 2024 NFC championship game trying to stop a play that is seemingly impossible to stop.

That led to referee Shawn Hochuli saying the Commanders were warned that the Eagles could be awarded a score if the antics continued.

The outcome heightened the ‘tush push’ debate as Washington was helpless on the goal line in an 11-point game in the fourth quarter.

While Luvu is vocal for calls to ban the play, the Green Bay Packers brought the official proposal to the table this offseason. The Packers also played the Eagles during the 2024 postseason, adding another layer to the debate.

Now it’ll be up to the Eagles to figure out how to adjust if the ban comes to fruition. At the very least, players like Luvu won’t feel sorry for them.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY