Dear Commons Community,

Charles Gasparino, a veteran Fox Business Network correspondent declared that both President Donald Trump’s administration and China “blinked” when it came to negotiations between the countries on significantly easing tariffs.

Gasparino — in one of several posts on X, formerly Twitter — stressed that he “didn’t say we won” in response to a social media user who suggested Gasparino saw the deal as a U.S. victory.

“Trump raised tariffs on the world, the markets, particularly the bond market — which we need to finance our debt — rebelled,” Gasparino wrote in a separate post.

“Trump then was forced to back off.  End of story.   

Gasparino argued last month that the Trump administration had a “weak negotiating hand” at the time with the U.S. nearing a recession and markets being “on edge.”

“We need people to buy our debt, and China supplies us with a lot of cheap goods,” Gasparino said in an appearance on Fox News’ “The Story.”

“We could see inflation ratchet up dramatically if we don’t get a deal with them. And [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping] knows this.”

The deal announced Monday sees the countries agreeing to a 90-day pause on tariffs, with the U.S. bringing its 145% tariffs down to 30% on Chinese imports and China dropping its 125% tariffs down to 10% on U.S. imports.

Gasparino on Monday also wrote that the tariffs have taught a “little lesson on how markets exert their power,” adding, “how when you have to depend on them as we still do (and remember its really the budget deficit thats causing the trade deficit and we need the budget deficit to maintain our standard of living) you can’t go to trade war with the world without bad stuff happening.”

Good to see this analysis from a Trump-friendly media outlet.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Pope Leo XIV has urged for “responsibility and discernment” over the use of artificial intelligence (A.I.) during his first press briefing with the media since being elected as the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Leo acknowledged that A.I. has “immense potential” for the good of humanity, but echoed his predecessor, Pope Francis, as he warned it could also pose “new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor.”

Former Pope Francis had become increasingly vocal about his concerns over A.I. and its potential threat to humanity during his time as head of the church.

In April, shortly before his passing, Francis urged people to “to look less at screens and look each other in the eyes more.”

“Let us pray that the use of the new technologies will not replace human relationships, will respect the dignity of the person, and will help us face the crises of our times,” he added.

Pope Leo told his first press briefing, “Communication is not only the transmission of information, but it is also the creation of a culture, of human and digital environments that become spaces for dialogue and discussion. In looking at how technology is developing, this mission becomes ever more necessary. I am thinking in particular of artificial intelligence, with its immense potential, which nevertheless requires responsibility and discernment in order to ensure that it can be used for the good of all, so that it can benefit all of humanity. This responsibility concerns everyone in proportion to his or her age and role in society.”

Leo, who was elected as the first American to lead the Roman Catholic Church, told the gathered press on Monday that A.I. was one of the great challenges of this era.

The pope, formerly known as Cardinal Robert Prevost, said that the responsibility for using artificial intelligence safely, “concerns everyone in proportion to his or her age and role in society.”

Leo also referenced the issue in his remarks Saturday, where he said he identified with his predecessor Francis, and spoke of another industrial revolution through A.I.

“In our own day, the church offers everyone the treasury of its social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor,” he said.

“It has been clearly seen in the example of so many of my predecessors, and most recently by Pope Francis himself, with his example of complete dedication to service and to sober simplicity of life, his abandonment to God throughout his ministry and his serene trust at the moment of his return to the Father’s house. Let us take up this precious legacy and continue on the journey, inspired by the same hope that is born of faith,” Leo said.

Interesting that Pope Leo IV should make AI one of the first issues he comments on.

Tony

The government-owned Qatar Amiri Flight company’s Boeing 747-8Z5 is similar to one said to be in discussions to be transferred to Trump.

Dear Commons Community,

In what is perhaps his sleaziest move since becoming president in January,  Trump intends to accept a Boeing 747-8 plane as a gift from the Qatari royal family that would be outfitted to serve as Air Force One, according to a source briefed on the matter.  As reported by Reuters and ABC News.

The luxury plane, which would be one of the most valuable gifts ever received by the U.S. government, would eventually be donated to Trump’s presidential library after he leaves office, the source said. A new commercial 747-8 costs approximately $400 million.

In a post on his social media site Truth Social late on Sunday, Trump appeared to confirm the proposal.

“So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane,” he wrote.

Democrats and good government advocates said it was unethical and likely unconstitutional for Qatar to make such a gift.

“Nothing says ‘America First’ like Air Force One, brought to you by Qatar,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer wrote on X. “It’s not just bribery, it’s premium foreign influence with extra legroom.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, “Any gift given by a foreign government is always accepted in full compliance with all applicable laws. President Trump’s administration is committed to full transparency.”

A Qatari spokesperson, Ali Al-Ansari, told the New York Times that the possible transfer of the aircraft was still under consideration and “no decision has been made,” the newspaper reported.

ABC News was first to report the planned gift yesterday.

Trump has expressed frustration at the delays in delivering two new 747-8 aircraft to serve as an updated Air Force One. During his first term, Trump had reached a deal with Boeing to deliver the jets in 2024. A U.S. Air Force official told Congress last week that Boeing had proposed finishing the planes by 2027.

Trump toured the Qatari-owned 747-8 in February when it was parked at Palm Beach International Airport in Florida, near his Mar-a-Lago resort. At the time, the White House said the president did so to get a better understanding of how the updated Air Force One planes would be configured.

In a statement, a spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a good government organization based in Washington, questioned whether the transfer might violate the Constitution’s ban on U.S. officials accepting gifts from foreign governments absent congressional approval.

“This sure looks like a foreign country that the president has personal business dealings in giving the president a $400 million gift right before he meets with their head of state,” the spokesman, Jordan Libowitz, said.

Trump is set to visit Qatar during a trip to the Middle East this week. The airplane will not be presented or accepted while Trump is in Qatar.

ABC reported, citing sources, that lawyers for the White House counsel’s office and the Department of Justice had prepared an analysis concluding that it would be legal and constitutional for the Defense Department to accept the plane as a gift and later transfer it to Trump’s presidential library.

There are no limits to Trump’s sleaze!

Tony

Barry Diller. Courtesy of Mark Peckmezian for The New York Times

Dear Commons Community,

If you have any interest in Barry Diller, his life, and his role in the media, Maureen Dowd had an extended article yesterday in The New York Times that is for you.  She starts with his autobiography, Who Knew,  that was just published.  Here is an excerpt. 

“ Barry Diller has only just started his book tour, but he’s already trying to sneak away.

“I’m shortening the tour part,” the 83-year-old mogul said recently in his sonorous baritone, the “Killer Diller” voice that intimidated and intrigued Hollywood for more than half a century. “I am not up for interrogation on aspects of my personal life.”

As we sat on cappuccino-colored couches in his gorgeous Art Nouveau aerie in the Carlyle hotel, I reminded Diller about the bewitchingly candid first paragraph of his bildungsroman, Who Knew:

The household I grew up in was perfectly dysfunctional. My parents separated often and came a day short of divorce several times before I was 10; my brother was a drug addict by age 13; and I was a sexually confused holder of secrets from the age of 11.

And there it was, Hollywood’s worst-kept secret spilled: Barry Diller is gay. Or rather, bisexual — or bi with Di, since, as he writes, “While there have been a good many men in my life from the age of 16, there has only ever been one woman.” The sultry Princess of Wrap, Diane von Furstenberg, swept him away back in the Studio 54 days. She’s proud of being the first woman he ever slept with, in a torrid romance that later unfurled into a long, happy, sexually liberated marriage.

Von Furstenberg and Diller’s friends are watching, wide-eyed, as Diller talks publicly for the first time about his unorthodox private life. The gruff, point-blank executive is known, as the Netflix chief executive Ted Sarandos said, as “one of the very few who doesn’t care what people think in a town full of people who do care.” That is true in business. But for most of his lifetime, Diller did care about what people thought of his sexual orientation.

“I wanted to tell the story,” he said about his alienated childhood and dazzling career. “And I knew if I told the story, I had to tell the truth.” That doesn’t make it easier. He’s kept his private life shrouded for so long, it’s hard now to rip off that shroud.

Even though he early on created what he calls his own “Bill of Rights,” where he would not tell many people in his business world that he was gay but would also not pretend to be heterosexual and act like “one of the boys,” he now says he was just “chicken.”

“So many of us at that time were in this exiled state, so stunted in the way we lived,” he writes. “Consider if you can what such a daily drip of that kind of dysfunctional life does to one’s sense of self.”

In his big, sprawling life, Diller has helped shape the culture across the 20th and 21st centuries, traversing the world of entertainment from a heady time for Hollywood studios to a bleak time, deftly surfing the shifts from networks to movie theaters to cable to VCRs to streaming. He was early to see the artificial intelligence revolution coming and to predict that the upstart streamers would swallow the grand old studios — the death knell for Hollywood as we knew it.

“It’s interesting that Barry spent the first part of his career building Hollywood,” The Ankler’s Janice Min said, “and the second part talking about what a disaster it is.”

But that culture has also shaped his life. His memoir is blunt, like him, with a vulnerable story about coming of age in America that stands in stark contrast to the manosphere and the cartoonish, chest-thumping, cat-lady-hating “masculine energy,” as Mark Zuckerberg termed it, being projected in Washington by President Trump, JD Vance and Elon Musk.”

I found Dowd’s entire article most interesting.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Today we remember and thank our mothers and grandmothers, living and dead who gave so much to us!

Thank you!

Tony

H. Holden Thorp

Dear Commons Community,

Science had an editorial in its latest edition entitled:  “The new reality for American academia” by editor-in-chief H. Holden Thorp.  He has a good pulse on the issues such as the value of science research, reevaluating elitism in private universities, the focus of medical research, and the need for a “horizontal” relationship between universities and the American people—one that is based on mutual respect and reciprocity.”

Below is his entire editorial.

Important reading!

Tony

—————————————————————-

Science

The new reality for American academia

H. Holden Thorp

The endless churn of damaging actions from the Trump administration toward science—from freezing and canceling grants to ending programs that encourage greater participation in science—has wreaked havoc in American universities and reverberated around the world as worries about international collaborations and access to American scientific resources threaten the global scientific enterprise. The situation has created anxiety and stress on campuses in the US as administrators contemplate their next moves and faculty and students wonder how to respond. As I travel to campuses around the United States and talk with research faculty, trainees, and students, a common question I hear is “What can I do?”

As with any long-standing institution, there are surely things that can be improved, like better communicating the value of scientific research and academic freedom to a public that supports academia with their tax dollars. But the vitriol from the White House only makes talking about needed changes that much harder. How can academia engage in honest conversation about reform in a way that rebuilds the partnership with the country without seeming to give affirmation to the political attacks?

After reading her insightful piece in The Atlantic about a potential way forward, I talked to Danielle Allen, a professor at Harvard University who studies political science, democracy, and philosophy. She argues for a new social contract between higher education and the federal government that simultaneously calls for a firm commitment to academic freedom and what she calls a “horizontal” relationship between universities and the American people—one that is based on mutual respect and reciprocity. She also makes a compelling call for universities to do a better job of expressing appreciation for the support that the American taxpayers have provided to higher education in the decades since World War II. In her estimation, gratitude from academia has been scant or not apparent. It’s important to remember, she noted, that politicians who are carrying out the Trump agenda are not speaking for the majority of the American people. Despite recent losses of confidence, members of the public “continue to have aspirations for the value of colleges and universities to our society,” she told me. Indeed, in a recent poll, 70% of the public opposed an increase in the federal government’s role in the operation of private universities, whereas only 28% were in favor.

How can academia engage in honest conversation about reform in a way that rebuilds the partnership with the country…?

Exploring this idea further, I talked to Ryan Enos, another Harvard professor and a political scientist. He also supports the idea of acknowledging higher education’s obligations to the American public. Given the tremendous responsibility that universities in the United States are given to educate society and the influence that higher education has on the public, he told me there is “an ethical obligation to ask whether we are effectively fulfilling our duty to the country.” What all of this suggests is that academia needs to find a new way forward—one that involves admitting where it has fallen short and where reform is needed while continuing to defend the values that have led to the many contributions that science and universities have made to enable American success. That way forward will require substantial change. As Allen told me, “I think this is like going through a divorce and then trying to get into a new relationship when you’ve discovered that all kinds of habits and patterns and expectations have to adjust.”

After World War II, in which American science played such a pivotal role, universities in the United States entered an agreement with the federal government in which they were granted sizable federal research support for science and guaranteed freedom from government interference. In return, they would produce medical and other scientific advances and enable a strong economy through new technologies and an educated and technically skilled workforce, all of which would help support a strong defense. This social contract stoked tremendous growth in universities and their research efforts, but it also gave the government great leverage—the power of the purse—which is now being exploited by the Trump administration. Another side effect of this long-reliable social contract may have been to give universities and investigators an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for the social consequences of their research, because the focus was on the knowledge gained rather than on any impacts on the public. “It’s not a crazy strategy,” Allen told me, “but it does have this accidental by-product of cultivating a habit or an ethos of not taking responsibility for downstream consequences of choices that we’re making.”

So, how can higher education reorient its relationship with the American public? Allen argues for counteracting the elite image of private universities like Harvard by expanding enrollment, though she acknowledges that the consequential increase in teaching load might face resistance from faculty that prefer doing more research. Enos points out another downside to that approach: “Admissions in the top universities is a grain of sand on the beach of the American population and so increasing the student body size might be nice, but doing so would have no practical implications for American society.” It’s important to keep in mind that much of what Allen is recommending is already being done by larger public universities. Shifting the focus away from Ivy League institutions in the coming months is a crucial strategy because public and land grant universities are already sending the message that all of higher education needs to embrace—solving problems while showing a strong sense of public commitment and service.

Allen also suggests that medical schools shift more attention from research to medical education and primary care. Today, many academic physicians lobby for less time caring for patients and more time for research that might advance medical science. This makes sense, both in terms of what the system rewards but also in fulfilling the social contract. Biomedical research remains politically popular: 77% of the public opposed reducing funding for biomedical research, whereas only 21% supported the cuts. Still, many medical schools have emphasized research over medical education and patient care to the point that a rebalancing is required to maintain public support.

Taken together, these ideas set the stage for more consideration of how higher education can move forward in these critical times. Meanwhile, what should individual researchers and faculty do on a day-to-day basis? In her Atlantic piece, Allen recounted a story about the terrorist attacks of 9/11. When the planes were hitting the World Trade Center towers, she and her colleagues elected to continue with a planned workshop on Thucydides rather than gluing themselves to televisions to watch the news. She sees this as a parable for how academics should respond to the current moment—by ensuring that amid the chaos, activities that are the core mission of a university are maintained. At a time when forces are trying to distract and disrupt the scientific enterprise, doing the important work of finding and sharing the truth is now a great act of resistance.

H. Holden Thorp, Editor-in-Chief

Dear Commons Community,

Democrats are blasting former President Biden’s reemergence in the limelight following his interview Thursday on “The View,” his second major post-presidency interview.

During the sit-down, which took place alongside former first lady Jill Biden, Biden slammed President Trump’s second administration, saying he’s had “the worst 100 days any president’s ever had.” The former president also denied reports of his mental decline during his term and took responsibility for Democratic losses in 2024, telling the show’s hosts, “I was in charge, and he won.”

Yet some Democrats are criticizing Biden’s recent appearances, arguing the former president is becoming a drag on the party as it seeks to rebuild following its widespread losses in 2024.  As reported by The Hill.

“Elections are about the future. Every time Joe Biden emerges, we fight an old war,” said Democratic strategist Anthony Coley, who worked for the Biden administration. “Every interview he does provides a contrast to Trump that’s just not helpful for the Democratic brand, which needs trusted messengers and fighters who can reach independents and moderates and inspire the base. Joe Biden ain’t that.”

Coley said it was “good” Biden took responsibility for the events that led to Trump’s election but questioned whether it mattered going forward.

“Honestly, what good does that do now? Many Democrats — from elected leaders to the party faithful — are just ready to turn the page. I just don’t think he understands how wide and deep this sentiment is,” he said.

Other Democratic critics argue the former president did not go far enough.

One Democratic strategist said Biden needs to “take responsibility for his actions” and “own up to the fact that he caused Democrats to lose.”

“I don’t think there’s a willingness to cop to the fact that he should never have run again in the first place,” the strategist said. “Why can’t he come out and acknowledge that part of this is on him?”

Thursday’s interview with “The View” was his second sit-down interview of the week, with the first airing Tuesday on the BBC. Biden took multiple opportunities to criticize Trump’s foreign policy in his conversation with the British broadcaster, taking particular aim at Trump’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Some Democrats say Biden would be better suited avoiding sit-down interviews and instead focus on community outreach, much like former President Carter did.

“There is a way for President Biden to build his post-presidency, but this isn’t it,” said Steve Schale, a longtime Biden ally who ran a pro-Biden super PAC in recent cycles. “I really wish he’d embrace the thing that’s been his calling card for 50 years: his humanity.”

While Biden focuses on preserving his legacy, Schale said he would take an approach similar to what Carter took in the years following his presidency.

“By the end of his life, we were reminded of the decent and humble nature of the man thanks to his acts, not his words,” Schale said. “I really wish Biden would follow a similar path.”

“Get out and work in the community. Do … things that highlight the things his administration did to help people,” Schale said. “Let the images of his human interactions and the stories they tell rebuild the brand. That’s way more powerful than playing pundit.”

The interviews come amid a slew of books detailing the last year of the Biden administration, including accusations his mental acuity was slipping while in office. Biden denied those reports, calling them “wrong.” The former first lady also slammed reporting on Biden’s mental acuity while in office, noting “the people who wrote those books were not in the White House with us.”

A second Democratic strategist predicted the Biden narrative on his mental acuity will not go away and will be something future presidential contenders will have to answer for.

“There’s a good chance that the most significant litmus test for any Democrat in the 2028 field will be how and if they admonish Biden for the political judgment in the final 18 months of his political career,” the strategist said.

But Biden still has staunch defenders within the Democratic ranks who argue his storied career in politics is needed in the party.

“I thought that was good for Joe Biden to just be honest and open about where things were, and where they are, and where he thinks they very well could be based on his own life experiences,” said Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright, who has spent time with Biden after his administration.

“If you know Joe Biden like I know Joe Biden and have spent time with him post-the presidency like I’ve spent time with him, then you will know that Joe Biden is doing what is still in the best interests of the country,” he continued. “Joe Biden can still be helpful to the country, to the Congress, the Constitution, and the community.”

Seawright said the choice of “The View” for Biden’s first American post-presidency interview was good, given the program’s broad reach.

“I think ‘The View’ is a very captive audience. It’s also a very diverse audience that crosses many sectors of the country,” he said.

But as younger voices become more prominent voices in the party, other Democrats are questioning why the interview was even necessary.

“I don’t know who’s asking for this,” Democratic strategist Jon Reinish said. “I actually think that a lot of people are starting to pay much more attention to a younger generation of Democrats free of baggage and who are finally starting to move the party away from folks who stayed too long at the fair.”

I believe that Biden should stay out of the political limelight. He was the major reason the Democrats lost to Trump!

Tony

Jeanette Nuñez

Dear Commons Community,

Former Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez, who was appointed interim president of Florida International University in February, is the sole finalist to become president of the Miami-based school, the chairman of a search committee announced yesterday. 

Carlos Duart, an FIU trustee who led the search committee, wrote in a message to the university community that the committee selected three finalists, but two said they would only continue to a public phase of the process if they were chosen as the lone candidate.   As reported by CBS News and The Miami Herald.

“As a result, these two finalists withdrew their candidacy,” Duart wrote. “Given her proven record of leadership and unique qualifications, the committee unanimously agreed to move Interim President Nuñez forward as its sole finalist for consideration by the FIU Board of Trustees.”

The trustees and the state university system’s Board of Governors would have to approve hiring Nuñez as president.  Duart’s message said Nuñez will take part in campus forums on May 21 and the Board of Trustees will meet June 2 to formally interview her.

The announcement came after the University of Florida on Sunday said University of Michigan President Santa Ono is the sole finalist to become UF president. UF conducted a search after former President Ben Sasse resigned last year.

Nuñez has a history with the school  

Nuñez, a Miami Republican who received bachelor’s and master’s degrees at FIU, left the lieutenant governor’s job to become interim president. She replaced Kenneth Jessell, who had served as FIU’s president since 2022.

While the FIU Board of Trustees did not specifically discuss Nuñez serving as president on a more-permanent basis at the time she took the interim post, trustee Dean Colson during a Feb. 7 meeting indicated the “probable results of the search are already known.”

Duart’s message Thursday said the search committee selected as finalists Nuñez and a “sitting president and sitting provost at other institutions.” He did not identify the other two candidates.

State law provides public-records and public-meetings exemptions for information about candidates to become university presidents, though the identities of final candidates are released as they are vetted publicly. The Florida House this spring tried to get rid of the exemptions, but the Senate did not go along.

Duart wrote that FIU is “central to Interim President Nuñez’s life and that of her family.”

“Interim President Nuñez’s distinguished career and commitment to further cement FIU’s position as a leader in higher education in Florida and across the country make her an excellent leader for FIU at this pivotal point in our university’s journey,” he wrote.

Nuñez, who also is a former state House member, is making an annual base salary of $850,000 as interim president and is eligible for a bonus up to 15 percent, according to information released in February.

The announcements this week about Nuñez and Ono being the sole finalists for the FIU and UF jobs have come amid heavy turnover in leadership of state universities and colleges.

For example, former state House Majority Leader Adam Hasner was chosen in February to become president of Florida Atlantic University. Also, Florida A&M University last month announced the names of four finalists to become its president, and University of South Florida President Rhea Law has announced she is stepping down.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The protodeacon of the College of Cardinals announced in St. Peter’s Square to the world yesterday afternoon that a new pope had been elected.  Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost was elected to succeed Pope Francis and will take the name Pope Leo XIV.

He was born on the southside of Chicago to American and Latina parents and graduated from Villanova University.  He has spent much of his religious life in Peru and has dual citizenship in the United States and Peru.

He is considered a centrist and supportive of immigrant rights.  He has also taken conservative stands regarding LGBTQ rights and the role of women in the Church. His biography as appeared in Forbes can be found at:   What We Know About the First American Pope.

Viva el Papa!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The Catholic Church announced that priests will be excommunicated if they follow a new Washington State law requiring clergy to report confessions about child abuse to law enforcement.  As reported by several news media.

“Catholic clergy may not violate the seal of confession — or they will be excommunicated from the Church,” the Archdiocese of Seattle said in a statement. “All Catholics must know and be assured that their confessions remain sacred, secure, confidential and protected by the law of the Church.”

“The Catholic Church agrees with the goal of protecting children and preventing child abuse,” the statement added, noting that it “remains committed to reporting child sexual abuse, working with victim survivors towards healing and protecting all minors and vulnerable people.”

The new law — signed by Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson last week — added “members of the clergy” to a list of professionals who are required to report information that relates to child abuse or neglect to law enforcement, and the measure does not provide an exception for information offered at a confession booth.

Priests in the Catholic Church have been bound by the absolute seal of confidentiality, an obligation that requires them to keep anything learned in confession a secret.

The Archdiocese of Seattle said its policies already require priests to be mandatory reporters unless the information is received during confession.

“While we remain committed to protecting minors and all vulnerable people from abuse, priests cannot comply with this law if the knowledge of abuse is obtained during the Sacrament of Reconciliation,” its statement said.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has opened an investigation into the law for possible violations of the First Amendment’s religious protections.

“SB 5375 demands that Catholic Priests violate their deeply held faith in order to obey the law, a violation of the Constitution and a breach of the free exercise of religion cannot stand under our Constitutional system of government,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division said.

“Worse, the law appears to single out clergy as not entitled to assert applicable privileges, as compared to other reporting professionals,” she continued. “We take this matter very seriously and look forward to Washington State’s cooperation with our investigation.”

The bill will go into effect on July 26.

Washington is one of just five states that does not explicitly or implicitly require clergy to report suspected child abuse or neglect, a federal report shows, according to Fox 13. Most states exempt information obtained through confession from mandatory reporting, but Washington now joins just a handful of states that do not provide such exemptions.

“This new law singles out religion and is clearly both government overreach and a double standard,” the Archdiocese of Seattle said. “The line between Church and state has been crossed and needs to be walked back. People of every religion in the State of Washington and beyond should be alarmed by this overreach of our Legislature and Governor.”

The Catholic Church will never yield on the issue of confidentiality in confession.

Tony