Trump’s Nominee to Replace Kavanaugh Questioned Date Rape, Discrimination, and Climate Change

Neomi Rao, reportedly on Trump’s Supreme Court short list, hasn’t moved far from the radical stances of her college writings.

Neomi Rao, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, smiles as President Donald Trump announces his intention to nominate her to fill Brett Kavanaugh's seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.Evan Vucci/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Neomi Rao, whom President Donald Trump nominated to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the federal benchĀ and who’s reportedly on the president’s Supreme Court short list,Ā wrote in the 1990s thatĀ victims of date rape were partly responsible if they’d been drinking. In a series of controversial articles for Yale University campus papers, she alsoĀ suggested that climate change wasn’t real and argued that sexual and racial oppression were “myths.”

The 45-year-old Rao, who currently serves as Trumpā€™s deregulatory czar as administrator of the White Houseā€™s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), started her campus journalism career at the Yale Free Press, a publication that describes itself as ā€œsomewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.ā€ It was founded by the son of the late Robert Bork, the judge whose radically conservative views tanked his 1987 Supreme Court nomination. After graduation, she went to work as a reporter for the now-defunct conservative Weekly Standard before heading off to law school.

That body of work shows a young Rao steeped in themes that have continued to characterize her legal work later in life, especially an Ayn Rand-like focus on the individual versus the group. Even as a freshman, Rao railed against feminism, affirmative action, political correctness, multiculturalism, LGBT rights, and environmentalism.

It’s fitting that Trump nominated Rao to fill Kavanaugh’s seat on the powerful DC Circuit Court of Appeals, given that Kavanaugh was just embroiled in historically contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings for his own behavior at Yale and at other points in his youth.

Rao’s early writings havenā€™t aged well and are likely to become an issue at her confirmation hearing. The White House was forced to withdraw another one of Trumpā€™s nominees to a federal circuit court, Ryan Bounds, after the emergence of his controversial undergraduate writings at Stanford University, in which he disparaged multiculturalism and race-focused organizations. Boundsā€™ youthful college work is not so different from Raoā€™s.

She denounced multiculturalism as a divisive force and wrote a number of articles complaining about the existence of ethnic cultural houses on the Yale campus. In one piece she wrote, headlined ā€œSeparate, But More Than Equal,ā€ Rao and a co-author suggested that minority students were getting an unfair advantage by having special deans devoted to helping them. The notion that racism and sexism are no longer big social problems permeated Raoā€™s writing. In one pieceĀ in the Free Press headlined ā€œSubmission, Silence, Mediocracy,ā€ she wrote, ā€œMyths of sexual and racial oppression propogate [sic] themselves, create hysteria and finally lead to the formation of some whining new group. One can only hope to scream, ‘Perspective, just a little perspective, dahling!'”

Raoā€™s views on affirmative action and multiculturalism donā€™t seem to have changed much since she was in college. After graduating from the University of Chicago Law School, she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, who also has a dim view of affirmative action. In 2009, Rao testified at the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and questioned the nomineeā€™s ability to be objective as a judge because of Sotomayorā€™s suggestion that a ā€œwise Latinaā€ may come to better decisions from the bench than a white man.

As an undergrad, Rao was a champion of individual rights and elitistĀ meritocracy. In a review of William Henryā€™s In Defense of Elitism, she wrote, ā€œIn this age of affirmative action, women’s rights, special rights for the handicapped and welfare for the indigent and lazy, elitism is a forgotten and embarrassing concept. Elitist ideals and social hierarchies are something from an unĀ­enlightened past. In our new feelĀ­-good era, everybody is okay, and political and academic standards can adjust to accommodate anyone.ā€

In her work at the Free Press and other campus publications, Rao was particularly scornful of feminists, who she often said failed to recognize the biological differences between men and women. In one Free Press article, Rao described feminism as having ā€œcontemporary associations with radicalism and lesbianism.ā€

In 1995, on the 25th anniversary of the first class of women admittedĀ to Yale, Rao wrote a long story suggesting that women had achieved equality with men and therefore didnā€™t need any special consideration. Differences in things like pay, she wrote, occurred simply because of womenā€™s choices to start families. In another editorā€™s note, she described Catharine MacKinnon, the famous feminist scholar who helped lay the legal groundwork for courts to treat sexual harassment as a form of discrimination, as a leader ā€œfilled with hatred.ā€ Rao compared MacKinnon to Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader known for his anti-Semitism, claiming that both wereĀ identity group leaders fighting battles that had been won long ago.

These musings on womenā€™s rights were a good predictor of what Rao would go on to do in the Trump administration. One of her first moves as head of OIRA was to suspend the implementation of a regulation created during the Obama administration requiring companies to report pay by race and gender. The regulation, issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionĀ in 2016, was designed to compile data that would allow researchers to get a better handle on the gender pay gap and to combat it more effectively.

Rao was especially outspoken on the subject of date rape, which was a hot topic on campus then as now. Raoā€™s writing on the subject of date rape may not find an especially welcome reception among Democrats on the Judiciary Committee after the controversy over Kavanaughā€™s nomination to the Supreme Court.

For instance, in an April 1993 article, Rao wrote that feminists had torn down traditional structures in the pursuit of gender equality and in the process had “unleashed other forces.” The patriarchal rules the feminists were destroying, Rao wrote, “also provided greater protection from horrors such as rape.ā€

A year later, in the Yale Herald, another campus publication, she wrote, ā€œI’ve been to a lot of fraternity parties on this campus. It has always seemed self evident to me that even if I drank a lot, I would still be responsible for my actions. A man who rapes a drunk girl should be prosecuted. At the same time, a good way to avoid a potential date rape is to stay reasonably sober. And if she drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice.ā€ She concluded, ā€œImplying that a drunk woman has no control of her actions, but that a drunk man does strips women of all moral responsibility.ā€

Jess Davidson, executive director of End Rape on Campus, called Rao’s writings “disqualifying for a judicial nominee.” She said in a statement, “Her comments condone victim blaming and perpetuate the rape culture in our schools and society that are dangerous to all individuals.”

Environmentalists were also a favorite target of Raoā€™s writing. In April 1992, when she was a freshman, she wrote that campus environmentalists were not presenting issues in a fact-based manner and frequently left out ā€œfree marketā€ solutions to pollution and other environmental problems. ā€œThe three major environmental bogeymen, the greenhouse effect, the depleting ozone layer, and the dangers of acid rain,” she wrote, are all theories that “have come under serious scientific attack.” She complained that environmental publications on campus “accept issues such as global warming as truth with no reference to the prevailing scientific doubts.ā€ Such groups, she wrote, ā€œhave promoted a dangerous orthodoxy that includes the unquestioning acceptance of controversial theories like the greenhouse effect.ā€

While her college work may be the musings of a young person, Rao has been remarkably consistent in her political views since her Yale days.Ā Her writingsĀ hinted at the lawyer she would become, especially in her current post at OIRA, an office knownĀ under TrumpĀ as the place where health, safety, and environmental regulations go to die. Raoā€™s views on the environment and regulation are particularly relevant to the job sheā€™s been nominated for. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is considered the second-most powerful court in the country, in large part because virtually every environmental, health, and safety regulation that comes out of Washington gets litigated there.

And Rao’s trajectory may not be limited to the DC Circuit. Last week, Politico reportedĀ that her name is now being circulated as a possible Trump replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose poor health has led the White House to start making plans for another Supreme Court vacancy.

Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group that has been reviewing Raoā€™s record, said in an interview that Raoā€™s college writing remains relevantĀ because Rao has never walked back from any of it, and in fact has highlighted it in public statements. ā€œShe is proud of these statements and her role in articulating them at Yale,ā€ she says. ā€œHer views are as relevant today as they were when she was in her 20s.ā€

Annie Rosenthal contributed research for this story.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate