School board settles religious discrimination suit against Christian university after blasting ‘Jesus’ values One school member was concerned about ACU’s agenda to advance the values of Jesus Christ.
An Arizona School District settled a religious discrimination case Thursday two months after it was accused of illegally terminating a contract while its members blasted the Christian “Jesus” values of a university.
The Washington Elementary School District was sued in March for allegedly impugning on the religious rights of Arizona Christian University for terminating a partnership that had been ongoing for 11 years after multiple board members attacked them for their religious beliefs.
On Wednesday evening, the board restored a contract with the university. A settlement agreement also likely will include that the district will be responsible for thousands in legal fees.
Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented the university, said the school board “showed blatant hostility to ACU’s beliefs” when it questioned how one could “be committed to Jesus Christ” and yet, at the same time, respect LGBTQ students and board members.
Washington Elementary School District (Washington Elementary School District)
One of the board members mentioned in the suit, Tamillia Valenzuela, describes herself as “a bilingual, disabled, neurodivergent Queer Black Latina… who loves a good hot wing (but only with the right ranch) and things that sparkle.”
“My concerns, [is] when I go to Arizona Christian University’s website, [they are] ‘committed to Jesus Christ, accomplishing his will and advancements on earth as in Heaven,'” she said. “While I full-heartedly believe in the religious freedom and people being able to practice whatever faith that they have, I had some concerns regarding looking at this particular institution… And I think it’s a really good time for us to take a moment and really pause about where our values lie.”
“Part of their values is… [to] ‘transform the culture with truth by promoting the Biblically-informed values that are foundational to Western civilization, including the centrality of family, traditional sexual morality, and lifelong marriage between one man and one woman,'” she said.
Washington Elementary School Board voted for a motion to dissolve their partnership with Arizona Christian University. (Fox News Digital)
“Because if we’re bringing people in whose mission [has]… been with their institution’s education that very plainly on their website… that above all else, it was to influence people to Biblically-minded. How does that hold space for people of other faiths? How does that hold space for our members of the LGBT community? How does that space for people who think differently and do not have the same beliefs,” she said.
School board member Kyle Clayton blasted the university for “teaching with a Biblical lens.”
“I, too, echo what Ms. Valenzuela said when I… looked into not only their core values, but the statement of faith… [which they] ask their students to sign and live by,” he said. “Proselytizing is embedded into how they teach. And I just don’t believe that that belongs in schools.”
Arizona Christian University sued a district for allegedly violated their First Amendment rights. (Curtesy of Arizona Christian University )
ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation David Cortman of Alliance Defending Freedom said, “By discriminating against Arizona Christian University and denying it an opportunity to participate in the student-teacher program because of its religious status and beliefs, the school district was in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution, not to mention state law that protects ACU’s religious freedom.”
“At a time when a critical shortage of qualified, caring teachers exists, the Washington Elementary School District board did the right thing by prioritizing the needs of elementary school children and agreeing to partner once again with ACU’s student-teachers.”
What’s with these blue states and their hatred for the 2nd Amendment? Recently California had their pro Nazi gun control law thrown out by the Liberal 9th Circuit. Now Washington and Colorado both passed the same type of anti 2nd Amendment laws. Why?
I guess it’s going to take another trip to the Supreme court for the Progressives to get it in their thick skulls that the majority of the people and courts are ready for it? Pro Gun.
Just the other day Illinois had this happen. U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn issued a preliminary injunction on Friday against the state’s Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed into law in January to ban the sale and distribution of assault-style weapons, high capacity-magazines and switches that convert handguns into assault-style firearms. The ruling comes after another federal judge rejected a request to block the law earlier this week.
Winning. Anheuser-Busch InBev has changed its marketing leadership after a disastrous marketing decision, Ad Age reported.
Woke Bud Light Vice-President of Marketing Alissa Heinerscheid has taken a leave of absence weeks after the company was criticized for its partnership with a transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.
Todd Allen, VP of global marketing for Budweiser, will replace Alissa Heinerscheid as vice president of marketing for the brand, Ad Age reported.
The Washington Post's editorial board has recently supported efforts to increase policing. (Oliver Contreras/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Winning. Washington Post calls for more police. Especially in cities like DC. All the MSM was calling for the defunding of police. Most called for a citizen type social worker group replacing them.
Now the Washington Post has finally admitted that it doesn’t work. More police is the answer.
WaPo editorial board shifts view on ‘Defund the Police’ since George Floyd riots: DC ‘needs more officers’
Recent editorials from the Washington Post changed the publication’s “Defund the Police” perspective with calls for increased police presence in the D.C. area.
On Friday, the paper’s Editorial Board published a piece arguing “Why police officers need to be in D.C. schools.”
“Many cities yanked officers out of schools while reassessing policing after George Floyd’s 2020 murder. However well-intentioned, the experiment has left kids more vulnerable and classrooms less safe amid surging youth violence. That’s why a notable number have already reversed course — including, in this region, Alexandria and Montgomery County. Other jurisdictions, from Boston to Phoenix, are actively debating whether to follow,” The Post wrote. “D.C. should join them.”
However, the Washington Post was one of many media outlets that entertained the idea of defunding the police after the death of George Floyd in 2020.
“Weeks of sustained anger and grief after the police killing of George Floyd have reignited a public debate over police brutality in the United States. Alongside demands for police reform, another demand has surfaced: Defund the police. This provocative slogan at its most constructive represents a welcome call to reimagine public safety in the United States,” a June 2020 editorial stated…
“Rethinking which institutions truly serve public safety and imagining new ones should be part of that conversation. This work is arduous and demanding — as many community organizers who have been doing it for decades can testify. But no one ever said reimagining public safety would be easy,” The Post wrote.
The British government is reportedly planning on issuing guidance to schools that would prohibit supposedly transgender students from joining contact sports teams of the opposite sex as well as requiring teachers to inform parents if their child begins displaying signs of transgenderism.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s recent declaration that 100 per cent of women do not have penises may have some real-world applications in the coming months, with the government reportedly preparing new guidance on gender for schools across the country.
According to a report from The Times of London, the proposed guidance would require schools to inform parents if their child began expressing signs of transgenderism, such as saying they would like to change their gender, begin wearing uniforms of the opposite sex, or demanding to be called a name associated with the other gender.
The change could have widespread ramifications, given that a recent survey from the Policy Exchange think tank found that four in ten secondary schools in England are currently allowing children to change their gender without consulting parents.
The document, which is currently being drafted by the Department for Education, would also tell schools that children who claim to identify as the other gender should not be permitted into changing rooms or showers of the opposite sex. However, other facilities could be provided as is already the case for disabled students.
Sports at schools would also covered under the guidanance, with the government reportedly set to ban biologically male students from joining girls’ teams — and vice versa — for contact and competitive sports such as rugby. Yet, there will apparently be less stringent rules surrounding sports that do not involve physical contact.
The report comes after British Prime Minsiter Rishi Sunak declared this week that ‘100 per cent’ of women do not have a penis.
Sunak, who has is in the past struggled to provide a definition of what exactly constitutes a woman, has seemingly firmed up his position on the hot-button political issue of gender.
Speaking to the Conservative Home website this week, the prime minister was pressed on whether he believed that 100 per cent of women do not have male genitalia, to which the prime minister responded“yeah, of course”.
The stance comes in contrast with that laid out by the head of the opposition in the parliament, Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer, who has claimed that only 99.9 per cent of women do not have penises.
Explaining his stance, Prime Minister Sunak said that he had a “slightly different point of view” from Sir Keir, adding: “We should always have compassion and understanding and tolerance for those who are thinking about changing their gender.
“But when it comes to these issues of protecting women’s rights and women’s spaces, I think the issue of biological sex is fundamentally important.”
An actual scientist. Biologist Defends JK Rowling: ‘Only Two Sexes’
Richard Dawkins, a prominent British evolutionary biologist, defended author J.K. Rowling on Monday amid backlash for her feminist critique of the transgender movement.
Joining “Piers Morgan Uncensored” on TalkTV, Dawkins accused leftists of bullying Rowling, who created Harry Potter, and lesbian philosopher Kathleen Stock for speaking out about gender.
“It’s bullying,” Dawkins said. “We’ve seen the way J.K. Rowling has been bullied, Kathleen Stock has been bullied. They’ve stood up to it, but it’s very upsetting the way this tiny minority of people has managed to capture the discourse to talk errant nonsense.”
Dawkins, a notable atheist activist, also said he was uninterested in talks about an undetermined number of genders.
“As a biologist, there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it,” he said, while acknowledging that a debate can still be had about sex and gender being different concepts.
Dawkins later commented on the state of Western universities and colleges, saying that “they have bought into the idea that if you don’t like what you think you’re going to hear from someone, you should shut them up.”
“They want to feel safe, and university is the one place you should not feel safe,” Dawkins said. “You want to be physically safe, but intellectually, you should be challenged.”
Dawkins’ comments came amid ongoing public backlash to Rowling, Stock, and other similar feminists who have been skeptical of the LGBTQ movement’s intrusion into women’s spaces.
“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives,” Rowling tweeted in 2020. “It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”
No more advertising the woke crowd. Please.(Photo by Mark LoMoglio/NHLI via Getty Images)
Winning. The Minnesota Wild admitted on Wednesday that it decided as a team not to wear their gay pride jerseys for its warmup period during Tuesday’s gay pride night game.
It also appears that the auction to benefit the LGBTQIA+ community was deleted from the team’s website.
The team has worn pride-themed jerseys in the past. However, the last time was in March of last year, Fox added.
This instance of refusing to wear a gay pride jersey is only the latest in a mounting number of teams worldwide that are turning away from wearing gay pride-themed paraphernalia.
In Jan., Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov skipped warmups because he refused to wear the gay pride jersey the team sponsored for its gay pride night game. Provorov said that bowing to the gay agenda violated his religious freedom and First Amendment rights.
That same month members of the New York Rangers team celebrated Pride Night on Friday but did not wear pride-themed jerseys or use rainbow tape during the event.
In 2022 several members of a rugby team in Sydney, Australia, refused to participate during the team’s gay pride pandering.
About seven members of the Sea Eagles refused to wear the gay pride jersey during the team’s game in July last year. Players added that the team planned its gay pride night without consulting them.
I guess butchering children’s genitals wasn’t a super popular cause for the Minnesota Wild so they skipped over it last night. 🤡
I still find it remarkable people can bring themselves to line the pockets of these people. https://t.co/gXYewBqM2p
Minnesota wild players as an organization refused to wear pride jerseys in warmups last night ( good for them ) now look at the woke mob freaks attacking A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION! I say F EM ! Let the freaks attack !!!
Fixing Education. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. (James Gilbert/Getty Images)
This article can be found at the WP. WHAT A BUNCH OF CRY BABIES
Florida legislators have proposed a spate of new laws that would reshape K-12 and higher education in the state, from requiring teachers to use pronouns matching children’s sex as assigned at birth to establishing a universal school choice voucher program.
The half-dozen bills, filed by a cast of GOP state representatives and senators, come shortly before the launch of Florida’s legislative session Tuesday. Other proposals in the mix include eliminating college majors in gender studies, nixing diversity efforts at universities and job protections for tenured faculty, strengthening parents’ ability to veto K-12 class materials and extending a ban on teaching about gender and sexuality — from third grade up to eighth grade.
The legislation has already drawn protest from Democratic politicians, education associations, free speech groups and LGBTQ advocates, who say the bills will restrict educators’ ability to instruct children honestly, harm transgender and nonbinary students and strip funding from public schools.
It shall be the policy of every public K-12 educational institution … that a person’s sex is an immutable biological trait.
— Florida House Bill 1223
“It really is further and further isolating LGBTQ students,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director for LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. “It’s making it hard for them to receive the full support that schools should be giving every child.”
Irene Mulvey, president of the American Association of University Professors, warned that the legislation — especially the bill that would prevent students from majoring in certain topics — threatens to undermine academic freedom.
“The state telling you what you can and cannot learn, that is inconsistent with democracy,” Mulvey said. “It silences debate, stifles ideas and limits the autonomy of educational institutions which … made American higher education the envy of the world.”
Sen. Clay Yarborough (R), who introduced one of the 2023 education bills — Senate Bill 1320, which forbids requiring school staff and students to use “pronouns that do not correspond with [a] person’s sex” and delays education on sexual orientation and gender identity until after eighth grade — said in a statement that his law would enshrine the “God-given” responsibility of parents to raise the children.
“The decision about when and if certain topics should be introduced to young children belongs to parents,” Yarborough said in the statement. “The bill also protects students and teachers from being forced to use language that would violate their personal convictions.”
The proposed laws have a high likelihood of passing in the State House, where GOP legislators make up a supermajority. Even before the landslide victory by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in November, very few Republicans pushed back against his policy proposals, instead crafting and passing bills that align with the governor’s mission to remake education in Florida from kindergarten through college.
Florida teen worries for LGBTQ students after ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill becomes law
4:45
Teen LGBTQ rights activist Will Larkins spoke to The Post about fighting this controversial bill less than a month after it was signed into law. (Video: Drea Cornejo/The Washington Post)
This year’s crop of proposed education bills accelerates those efforts, expanding on controversial ideas from the past two years and adding a few more. Tina Descovich, co-founder of the conservative group Moms for Liberty and a Florida resident, said her group backs the DeSantis education agenda “100 percent” — and that she thinks his policies are catching on outside the state.
“You see governors picking up education as a top issue, and you even see presidential candidates now putting education as a top issue,” she said. “I think Gov. DeSantis has set the path for that.”
Students at New College of Florida stage a walkout to protest far-reaching legislation that would ban gender studies majors and diversity programs at Florida universities. (Octavio Jones/Reuters)
Rick Hess, director of education policy studies for the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, predicted the education laws will play well with voters both in Florida and nationwide, boosting DeSantis’s chances at the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
“The direction of this policy is sensible policy,” Hess said, referring especially to laws limiting young children’s learning on sex and gender. “It is both attractive to the DeSantis base but also has been shown to poll quite well with the center right, the center and even with parts of the center left.”
A May 2022 Fox News poll found that 55 percent of parents favor state laws that bar teachers from discussing sexual orientation and gender identity with students before fourth grade. An October 2022 University of Southern California survey, meanwhile, found a partisan split: More than 80 percent of Democrats said high school students should learn about sexual orientation and gender identity, compared to roughly a third of Republicans. Just 7 percent of adults in both political camps supported assigning reading that depicts sex between people of the same sex to elementary-schoolers, per the survey.
The bills in Florida come as at least 25 states have passed 64 laws in the last three academic years reshaping what children can learn and do at school, according to a Washington Post tally. Many of these laws circumscribe education on race, gender and sexual identity, boost parental oversight of school libraries and curriculums or restrict the rights of transgender children in classrooms and on the playing field.
Florida already passed several such laws, including the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act,” which prohibits certain ways of teaching about race. (A judge blocked some aspects of the law in November.) Another is the “Parental Rights in Education” law, dubbed “don’t say gay” by critics, which forbids teaching about gender identity and sexual orientation during grades K-3 and requires that education on those subjects be age-appropriate in older grades.
One of the bills put forward in the 2023 legislative session builds directly on the parental rights law: House Bill 1223 would expand the ban on gender and sexuality education to extend through eighth grade. That bill also says school staffers, contractors and students cannot be required to use pronouns that do not match the sex a person was assigned at birth.
“It shall be the policy of every public K-12 educational institution,” the bill states, “that a person’s sex is an immutable biological trait and that it is false to ascribe to a person a pronoun that does not correspond to such person’s sex.”
Jon Harris Maurer, public policy director for LGBTQ rights group Equality Florida, said the bill will compound damage already wrought by the “Parental Rights in Education” act.
House Rep. Adam Anderson (R-District 57), who sponsored the bill, did not respond to a request for comment.
Florida legislators have introduced two other pieces of similar legislation: the near-identical Senate bill filed by Yarborough and House Bill 1069, brought by Rep. Stan McClain (R-District 27). The latter bill requires that students in grades 6-12 be taught that “sex is determined by biology and reproductive function at birth.” It also grants parents greater power to read over and object to school instructional materials, as well as limit their child’s ability to explore the school library.
McClain did respond to a request for comment.
Another bill on the table is House Bill 999, targeted to higher education and introduced by Rep. Alex Andrade (R-District 2), who did not respond to a request for comment. The bill outlaws spending on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, says a professor’s tenure can come under review at any time and gives boards of trustees — typically appointed by the governor or Board of Governors — control of faculty hiring and curriculum review.
It also eliminates college majors and minors in “Critical Race Theory, Gender Studies, or Intersectionality.” It says colleges should offer general education courses that “promote the philosophical underpinnings of Western civilization and include studies of this nation’s historical documents” including the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.
The bill has a companion in the Senate, proposed by Sen. Erin Grall (R), who did not respond to a request for comment. Andrade previously told the Tampa Bay Times that his bill would ensure that institutions of higher education remain focused on legitimate fields of inquiry rather than disciplines “not based in fact.”
“It’s a complete takeover of higher education,” said Kenneth Nunn, who stepped down earlier this year from his role as professor of law at the University of Florida — in part because of the politics in the state. The “attacks” on higher education “reduce the reputation and perhaps the accreditation of the state institutions,” Nunn said.
Organizations focused on civil liberties are also objecting. PEN America, which advocates for free speech, said the bill would impose “perhaps the most draconian and censorious restrictions on public colleges and universities in the country.” The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said the bill is “laden with unconstitutional provisions hostile to freedom of expression and academic freedom.”
Adam Kissel, a visiting fellow for higher education reform at the Heritage Foundation, said there are a few easily fixed constitutional problems with the wording but praised the bill for holding “universities accountable in a few ways to the will of the people.” He added that post-tenure review is important because someone who earns that laurel at 28 may “become a dead weight” 30 years later. He said an ideological review would be inappropriate, but that if a professor has turned from intellectual pursuits to activism and is no longer producing scholarship, then that faculty member — regardless of viewpoint — merits scrutiny.
Andrade’s bill mirrors steps already taken by the DeSantis administration. In early January, the governor’s budget office mandated that all universities report the amount of money they are expending on diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Later that month, DeSantis announced a slate of reforms to higher education, including prohibitions on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
A sixth education-related bill, House Bill 1, introduced by Reps. Kaylee Tuck (R-District 83) and Susan Plasencia (R-District 37), renders all parents eligible to receive state funds to send their children to private school, stripping away a previous low-income requirement, although low-income families would still be prioritized. It comes as the school choice movement is surging nationally, with Republican-led states passing laws that grant state funds to parents who can spend the money on religious and private schools. Tuck and Plasencia did not respond to requests for comment.
Pat Barber, president of the Manatee Education Association, said this bill is the one that hurts most.
“We’re not very well funded in public education in Florida to start with,” she said. “And their answer to that is to funnel money away from public education?”
The laws are moving through committee as DeSantis continues an ongoing feud with the College Board over a new AP African American studies course, which Florida has rejected as being too “woke.” DeSantis recently said the legislature “is going to look to reevaluate” whether the state should offer any AP courses at all, or the SAT exam.
Battles over state education have also spilled into other arenas. A dispute over the Parental Rights bill lasts year ended with DeSantis pushing for a state takeover of a half-century-old special taxing district for Walt Disney World. DeSantis began excoriating Disney after the company’s former CEO criticized the “Parental Rights in Education” law.
An earlier version of this article mistakenly identified Rep. Rene “Coach P” Plasencia (R-District 50) as a co-sponsor of House Bill 1. Rep. Susan Plasencia (R-District 37) is the co-sponsor of the bill. This article has been corrected.
Lori Rozsa is a reporter based in Florida who covers the state for The Washington Post. She is a former correspondent for People magazine and a former reporter and bureau chief for the Miami Herald.
Dozens of fast-food workers from around the state, including Yolanda Meneses of San Diego, gathered outside the office of state Sen. Dave Mins, D-Irvine on Wednesday, July 27, 2022, asking for his support of AB 257. (Photo by Mindy Schauer, Orange County Register/SCNG)
Back in 1911, concerned that the Legislature was bowing to the special interests of the powerful railroad lobby, California voters heeded their governor’s call to take “the first step in our design to preserve and perpetuate popular government.”
They then took the historic act of enacting their right to bypass the Legislature by adopting the People’s right to enact legislation (the right to initiative), to approve statutes before they can take effect (the right to referendum), and to recall elected officers.
On Friday, a California court is expected to decide whether a state agency can nonetheless implement a law that is subject to a referendum before the voters have had an opportunity to approve it.
The law in question – Assembly Bill 257 – establishes a 10-member “Fast Food Council” which would have the authority to establish higher standards for wages, working hours, and working conditions for a select group of fast food restaurant workers. Most significantly, the council could increase by 42% the minimum wage for certain fast food workers from the State’s current minimum wage of $15.50 per hour to $22 per hour in 2023, with further increases in subsequent years.
Such significant increases in minimum wages will necessarily raise the cost of fast food at many fast food restaurants to the detriment of all Californians solely to benefit the pocket books of some Californians. And putting aside the Orwellian terminology of designating as a “minimum wage” a wage that far exceeds the minimum, a higher minimum wage for only some workers in the same community subject to the same cost of living as other workers constitutes political favoritism, not a solution. Even the Governor’s own Department of Finance warned that the bill “could lead to a fragmented regulatory and legal environment for employers and raise long-term costs.”
In response to the new law, a coalition of restaurants timely collected over one million signatures in a referendum petition to suspend the law until Californians could vote on it. That is over 60% more signatures than the amount necessary to trigger the right to a referendum.
Nonetheless, the director of the California Department of Industrial Relations, which will oversee the new council, said her department would implement the new law commencing January 1 while county election officials continue to verify the genuineness of the thousands of signatures on the referendum petition.
The director’s position conflicts with the very purpose of the People’s referendum power: to require that a law be approved by the voters before it takes effect.
Moreover, her position, if upheld, sets a dangerous precedent for the People’s right to hold a referendum on the hundreds of bills enacted at the end of each two-year legislative session on August 31 since signatures on a referendum petition are unlikely to be verified before the bills take effect on the following January 1. That is because the governor has until September 30 to sign bills; referendum proponents then have 90 days to collect the required signatures (or as late as December 29); and those hundreds of thousands of signatures could never be verified as genuine by January 1.
Fortunately, neither the California Constitution nor its Elections Code requires the suspension of a statute to await the counties’ verification of the signatures, as argued by the director. Under the California Constitution, the presentation of a referendum petition “certified” to be signed by the required number of voters suspends the statute. And the Constitution delegates to the Legislature “the manner in which a [referendum] petition shall be circulated, presented, and certified.”
The Legislature has specifically provided that the circulator of the referendum petition shall “certify” that “each signature is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be,” and that the “Petitions so verified shall be prima facie evidence that the signatures are genuine and that the persons are qualified voters.”
In other words, once the California Secretary of State determined on December 9, 2022, that the referendum petition here had significantly more than the required number of signatures, it was presumed to contain the genuine signatures of qualified voters until demonstrated to the contrary, thereby suspending the legislation.
The director’s position fails to honor the People’s right to approve legislation before it becomes effective, and weakens their right to reject special-interest legislation. If the director won’t change her position, the courts should stand up for popular democracy and require her to do so.
Daniel M. Kolkey, an attorney and a retired California judge, has advised four different state governors and chairs Pacific Research Institute’s California reform committee
It’s a start. Dell to Phase Out All Computer Chips Produced in China. No they’re not coming to the USA, but they’re pulling out of China by 2024. So it’s a start. As you know, China is the Progressives favorite, replacing Russia. We see that HP has also announced that they will be leaving China.
Nikkei Asia reports that Dell has told its suppliers to significantly reduce the number of components in its products that are “made in China” in an effort to diversify its supply chain as concerns over tensions between the US and China grow in the tech community. According to sources, the company has also informed its suppliers that it aims to stop using chips made in China by 2024. Dell reportedly plans to manufacture all chips used in its products in plants outside of China by 2024.
Apple reportedly plans to start making its MacBook notebooks in Vietnam by mid-2023, which means the company will have some alternative non-China production bases for all of its major product lines.
