I don’t understand the relevance of including the age in the headline. To me, it reads like the general counsel was objecting the access given to the DOGE rep because they are 23 years old. Yet, from what I can see, the article doesn’t seem to outline any such objection.
It’s because we know them best by their ages: 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.
Why not use their names?
For those not aware:
This is the sector that handles nuclear fissile materials including the warhead stockpiles and the nuclear reactors
Oh look, CNN pretending it cares about this shit all of a sudden.
Leave it to CNN to somehow bring ageism into an otherwise pertinent topic. That doesn’t belong in the headline.
If you want to say they’re inexperienced, then just do it. That might require verifying factual evidence, though.
If you want to say they’re inexperienced, then just do it.
Wouldn’t that be “ageism” too? What a ridiculous argument.
Why would saying that someone lacks experience in something be ageism?
Do you agree with Trump then?
Please explain how you came to that conclusion after reading their comment. Holy shit.
