Science magazine editor under fire after foul-mouthed rant against Trump supporters
The editor in chief of a once-highly respected science publication has issued an apology after descending into an expletive-laden meltdown on election night when former President Donald Trump emerged the winner.Last Tuesday night, Laura Helmuth, the editor in chief of Scientific American — the oldest continuously published magazine in American history — reportedly took to social media to unleash a series of invectives against those of her generation who voted for Trump."I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of f****** fascists," she wrote, according to screenshots shared by the Daily Mail."Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f*** them to the moon and back," she apparently added.Helmuth even apparently expressed shame for her Midwestern roots, decrying the entire state of Indiana as a haven for bigotry."Every four years I remember why I left Indiana (where I grew up) and remember why I respect the people who stayed and are trying to make it less racist and sexist," she said, according to the Daily Mail."The moral arc of the universe isn't going to bend itself."As might be expected, these alleged comments did not go over well, and soon social-media users began to call for Helmuth's resignation."Wow you should fire your unhinged editor. She needs a long rest somewhere padded," one user commented, according to the Daily Mail."She should be stripped of membership for any science organization she’s a member of. Trust in science is tanking because of these egregious, pathetic, bigoted scientists," reportedly added another.'I am committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity.'By Friday, Helmuth had backpedaled, issuing an apology for allowing the "shock and confusion" of the election results to get the best of her."I made a series of offensive and inappropriate posts on my personal Bluesky account on election night, and I am sorry," Helmuth wrote in a statement, according to the New York Post. "I respect and value people across the political spectrum. These posts, which I have deleted, do not reflect my beliefs; they were a mistaken expression of shock and confusion about the election results."Despite evidence to the contrary, Helmuth also insisted that she does have the necessary temperament to separate her personal views from her professional responsibilities. "I am committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity," she said.However, Scientific American has hardly steered clear of political matters under her leadership. In 2020, the same year Helmuth took the reins as editor in chief, the outlet broke a nearly 200-year-old tradition of officially remaining above the political fray and endorsed Joe Biden for president. The outlet likewise endorsed Kamala Harris for president in 2024.Perhaps even more abhorrent, Scientific American has seemingly embraced junk science, especially regarding gender. In April, it republished an interview in which a man posing as a woman accused those who oppose gender ideology of peddling "misinformation" and perpetrating "epistemological violence," as Blaze News previously reported.The outlet also denied the possibility that wealthy elites profited from the pandemic, stressed the COVID-19 vaccine was safe, and declared the lab-leak theory regarding COVID-19 "false." Scientific American even wasted ink, time, and money on multiple articles claiming that math, the NFL, and fighting obesity are racist.In a post following the election, Helmuth also indicated that others at the outlet were having similar difficulty accepting the outcome, allegedly posting, "Any advice on what workplaces can do to help people who are devastated by the election? Thanks so much."Despite an obviously leftward lurch at the outlet, Helmuth claimed in her Friday statement that her offensive insults of Trump supporters "of course do not reflect the position of Scientific American or my colleagues."Scientific American did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The editor in chief of a once-highly respected science publication has issued an apology after descending into an expletive-laden meltdown on election night when former President Donald Trump emerged the winner.
Last Tuesday night, Laura Helmuth, the editor in chief of Scientific American — the oldest continuously published magazine in American history — reportedly took to social media to unleash a series of invectives against those of her generation who voted for Trump.
"I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of f****** fascists," she wrote, according to screenshots shared by the Daily Mail.
"Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f*** them to the moon and back," she apparently added.
Helmuth even apparently expressed shame for her Midwestern roots, decrying the entire state of Indiana as a haven for bigotry.
"Every four years I remember why I left Indiana (where I grew up) and remember why I respect the people who stayed and are trying to make it less racist and sexist," she said, according to the Daily Mail.
"The moral arc of the universe isn't going to bend itself."
As might be expected, these alleged comments did not go over well, and soon social-media users began to call for Helmuth's resignation.
"Wow you should fire your unhinged editor. She needs a long rest somewhere padded," one user commented, according to the Daily Mail.
"She should be stripped of membership for any science organization she’s a member of. Trust in science is tanking because of these egregious, pathetic, bigoted scientists," reportedly added another.
'I am committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity.'
By Friday, Helmuth had backpedaled, issuing an apology for allowing the "shock and confusion" of the election results to get the best of her.
"I made a series of offensive and inappropriate posts on my personal Bluesky account on election night, and I am sorry," Helmuth wrote in a statement, according to the New York Post. "I respect and value people across the political spectrum. These posts, which I have deleted, do not reflect my beliefs; they were a mistaken expression of shock and confusion about the election results."
Despite evidence to the contrary, Helmuth also insisted that she does have the necessary temperament to separate her personal views from her professional responsibilities. "I am committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity," she said.
However, Scientific American has hardly steered clear of political matters under her leadership. In 2020, the same year Helmuth took the reins as editor in chief, the outlet broke a nearly 200-year-old tradition of officially remaining above the political fray and endorsed Joe Biden for president.
The outlet likewise endorsed Kamala Harris for president in 2024.
Perhaps even more abhorrent, Scientific American has seemingly embraced junk science, especially regarding gender. In April, it republished an interview in which a man posing as a woman accused those who oppose gender ideology of peddling "misinformation" and perpetrating "epistemological violence," as Blaze News previously reported.
The outlet also denied the possibility that wealthy elites profited from the pandemic, stressed the COVID-19 vaccine was safe, and declared the lab-leak theory regarding COVID-19 "false." Scientific American even wasted ink, time, and money on multiple articles claiming that math, the NFL, and fighting obesity are racist.
In a post following the election, Helmuth also indicated that others at the outlet were having similar difficulty accepting the outcome, allegedly posting, "Any advice on what workplaces can do to help people who are devastated by the election? Thanks so much."
Despite an obviously leftward lurch at the outlet, Helmuth claimed in her Friday statement that her offensive insults of Trump supporters "of course do not reflect the position of Scientific American or my colleagues."
Scientific American did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Originally Published at Daily Wire, World Net Daily, or The Blaze
What's Your Reaction?
