{"id":156761,"date":"2026-07-14T15:02:55","date_gmt":"2026-07-14T23:02:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/14\/inaction-on-judge-eleanor-ross-sends-a-clear-message-retaliating-against-whistleblowers-is-ok\/"},"modified":"2026-07-14T15:02:55","modified_gmt":"2026-07-14T23:02:55","slug":"inaction-on-judge-eleanor-ross-sends-a-clear-message-retaliating-against-whistleblowers-is-ok","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/14\/inaction-on-judge-eleanor-ross-sends-a-clear-message-retaliating-against-whistleblowers-is-ok\/","title":{"rendered":"Inaction On Judge Eleanor Ross Sends A Clear Message: Retaliating Against Whistleblowers Is OK"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
(Image via Getty)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Eleanor Ross<\/a> shouldn\u2019t be a federal judge. She exhibited disturbingly poor judgment<\/a>, lied about it<\/a>, and blamed her law clerk when she got caught. That\u2019s not someone<\/a> who should make life-and-death decisions about litigants\u2019 lives, livelihoods, and liberty. The challenge is how to remove her, since federal judges enjoy life tenure during \u201cgood behavior<\/a>\u201d and can only be removed by congressional impeachment<\/a>, unless they\u2019re pressured by colleagues to step down<\/a> to avoid further discipline.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Everyone seems to be waiting for someone else<\/em> to act. Unfortunately, spineless members of Congress immediately hunkered down in their partisan camps. House and Senate Judiciary Democrats refuse to hold judges accountable for anything<\/em>. They wrongly lionize the judiciary and view judges as a bulwark against autocracy, because judges sometimes rule against Trump administration lawlessness. Leadership \u2014 at least those leaders who even knew who Ross is<\/a> \u2014 said the discipline Ross received was sufficient<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

On the other side of the aisle, two Georgia House Republicans, Clay Fuller and Andrew Clyde, filed articles of impeachment against Ross. Fuller\u2019s rightly focused<\/a> on egregious lack of candor, whereas Clyde\u2019s<\/a> focused on the salacious sexual misconduct. Unfortunately, both misstated the standard<\/a> for impeachment: it\u2019s not \u201chigh crimes and misdemeanors,\u201d but \u201cgood behavior.\u201d Ross is clearly no longer exhibiting good behavior. Neither litigants nor the public should have confidence in her ability to judge others\u2019 veracity while her own veracity is in question, nor trust her rulings when she herself cannot tell the truth.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Back in September 2025, when first confronted<\/a> with allegations against her, Ross lied to the court: denying the allegations and, disturbingly, blaming her law clerk, claiming he made up the allegations in retaliation for a poor performance review. Such an outrageous lie by a life-tenured federal judge should stop us in our tracks. Just two or three<\/a> federal law clerks file complaints against judges<\/a> each year, even though in 2023, the judiciary\u2019s own workplace climate survey<\/a> found as many as 106 judges harassed their clerks. We don\u2019t have a culture of false allegations against judges: we have a culture of fear and gross underreporting, since clerks \u2014 and all judicial branch employees \u2014 are exempt from Title VII<\/a> of the Civil Rights Act and lack legal protection against retaliation for reporting.<\/p>\n

It took Ross several<\/em> supplemental submissions before admitting she lied. And yet, her only \u201cdiscipline<\/a>\u201d was that she was ordered to issue apology letters to six clerks who participated in the investigation. She couldn\u2019t even get that right<\/a>. In her first apology letter, she wrote:<\/p>\n

Thank you for your contributions to our Court during your clerkship. I convey my deepest apology for not taking steps to ensure that it was a more positive experience. I wish you all the best in your future legal endeavors and in life.<\/em><\/p>\n

Sincerely,<\/em><\/p>\n

Judge Ross<\/em><\/p>\n

Four clerks expressed concern<\/a> to Eleventh Circuit Chief Judge Pryor that the apology did not meet the standard \u2014 \u201csufficiently specific so as to make clear to the recipient the sexual misconduct for which the judge is apologizing.\u201d So, Pryor invited Ross to correct her work (something no other workplace would do). In her second apology, Ross apologized to one clerk \u201cfor my false accusation against you.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ross\u2019s \u201cfalse accusation<\/a>\u201d is textbook retaliation<\/a> for participating in an investigation and appears intended to obstruct the investigation into her misconduct, as well as chill complaints and clerks\u2019 participation in future misconduct investigations. We shouldn\u2019t just whistle past this false accusation\u2019s enormous implications on the clerk\u2019s career and reputation, had Ross not admitted she lied. As someone whose own career was derailed<\/a> by a false negative reference the judge I clerked for submitted to my post-clerkship employer five years ago, I understand the enormous power disparity between a federal judge with nearly unchecked power to spread such falsehoods, and a vulnerable clerk.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Disturbingly, Ross admits to retaliating against this clerk<\/a>, in writing<\/em>, yet Pryor declined to identify a second complaint against her to investigate Ross\u2019s efforts to obstruct the investigation through retaliation. Importantly, under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act<\/a> (JCDA), the law governing judicial discipline, Pryor could act absent a second complaint. He has chosen not to. Retaliation is prohibited conduct under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability Proceedings<\/a>. Sadly, Congress lacks judiciary experts with the expertise and motivating personal experience to champion this issue during an impeachment and galvanize support among their colleagues, let alone explain it to their constituents and the public.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Witnessing a judge retaliate against clerks and get away with it reinforces other clerks\u2019 fears about coming forward: they worry<\/a> they\u2019ll be discounted, disbelieved, or retaliated against. Consider this: when a JCDA complaint is filed, a copy is transmitted to the subject judge, who immediately sees the complainant\u2019s name and is not legally prohibited<\/a> from retaliating against them by, for example, providing false negative references<\/a> to employers, getting them blackballed from jobs, bad-mouthing them, and intervening in bar applications. Clerks depend on judges for references and career advancement. That\u2019s why more than 100 abusive sitting federal judges have evaded accountability. The judiciary refuses to self-police: they know this <\/em>Congress<\/a> won\u2019t conduct the rigorous, transparent oversight to force the judiciary\u2019s decades-long fraud perpetrated upon the public into the spotlight to initiate reform.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Congressional Democrats should join Ross\u2019s impeachment proceedings and signal a bipartisan commitment to holding judges accountable for abusing their power. But we can\u2019t discount the politics at play: Republicans want to impeach and remove a Democratic appointee to replace her with a Trump appointee, whereas Democrats will protect their own and keep that judicial seat blue at all costs. But, as one Democrat conceded privately, Democrats protecting someone because she\u2019s on their team is not a good enough reason. When the roles were reversed, and Trump appointee Joshua Kindred<\/a> was referred by the Judicial Council<\/a> to Congress for impeachment in 2024, not a single congressional Democrat filed articles of impeachment. So congressional Democrats\u2019 assertions about accountability and transparency ring hollow.\u00a0<\/p>\n

If we wait for Congress to impeach Ross, we\u2019ll be waiting forever. If we wait for the judiciary to police itself, we\u2019ll be waiting forever. It\u2019s on us to force change.\u00a0<\/p>\n

If you\u2019re outraged judges have free rein to abuse their power \u2014 interpreting our laws while exempt from those same laws \u2014 call your congressperson and urge them to impeach Ross.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Law clerks have agency, too. Mistreated clerks should flood the zone with JCDA complaints. Let\u2019s aim for 10 or 20 complaints, rather than the usual two or three<\/a>, in 2026. Force the judiciary to expend resources investigating. This will prove their process is deeply flawed and, frankly, would be unworkable if anywhere close to the true number<\/a> of mistreated employees filed complaints. They\u2019ll either be incentivized to reform it, or publicly shamed in the press \u2014 literally the only thing motivating them \u2014 each time another judge\u2019s misconduct is uncovered<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Federal judges interpret our laws. They should be held to the highest ethical standards. Right now, they\u2019re literally held to none.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s ethical lapses are particularly salient<\/a> in the public consciousness: many are rightly outraged by apparent ethical violations<\/a>, conflicts of interest<\/a>, and naked partisanship<\/a>. Supreme Court reform, including a code of conduct<\/a>, is a popular Democratic talking point. But lawmakers and candidates fail to understand the code of conduct<\/a> for lower court federal judges \u2014 which applies to Ross \u2014 is unenforceable and unenforced. It relies on law clerks to blow the whistle, which they rarely do, since they\u2019re not legally protected against retaliation; and on judges\u2019 colleagues to self-police misconduct, which, if Pryor is any indication, they do not. We need real reforms, and real reformers; not hollow talking points advanced by people who don\u2019t know what they\u2019re talking about.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Solutions exist, if we had fighters and experts<\/a> in Congress to champion them, and creative thinkers to advance creative solutions. Congress should finally pass the Judiciary Accountability Act<\/a> (JAA), which would extend Title VII, including legal protection against retaliation, to over 30,000 exempt judicial branch employees, closing the legal loophole that currently affords judges immunity for harassing staff. Congress should also pass the Transparency and Responsibility in Upholding Standards in the Judiciary (TRUST) Act<\/a>, which would have prevented abusive judges<\/a> like Mark Wolf<\/a> and Kesha Tanabe<\/a> from resigning amid misconduct investigations to evade accountability altogether. Importantly, Congress should leverage the appropriations process and the judiciary\u2019s annual budget request (which two Supreme Court justices are testifying about<\/a> on the Hill this week) to hold the judiciary accountable for making changes, either by cutting the judiciary\u2019s budget until they implement reforms or tying their funding to meaningful benchmarks for progress.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should finally conduct meaningful oversight over the judiciary, which they\u2019ve refused to do<\/a>, even though \u201cJudiciary\u201d is literally in those committees\u2019 names. Disturbingly, since the Ross matter came to light in late May, House Judiciary Democrats had time to write<\/a> to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) urging them to ban judges and clerks from participating in prediction markets, but could not be bothered<\/em> to send an oversight letter about Ross, draft impeachment articles, join House Republicans\u2019 impeachment efforts, or even learn who Eleanor Ross is<\/em><\/a>. <\/em>Ross affords a clear opportunity to seize the moment and use the national bully pulpit while there\u2019s public attention and bipartisan interest.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Many are rightly demanding transparency and accountability for those in power. Yet members of Congress \u2014 on the news demanding transparency and accountability for Trump administration lawlessness \u2014 suffer from a blind spot surrounding the courts, repeatedly giving judges the benefit of the doubt, which they don\u2019t deserve. Power corrupts: there\u2019s nothing more dangerous than power without accountability<\/a>. Congress has a rare opportunity, given the egregiousness of Ross\u2019s misconduct, to finally fix both the immediate problem \u2013Ross endangering public trust and confidence in the courts \u2014 and a larger system that\u2019s been broken for generations. The longer Congress allows the judiciary\u2019s lawlessness<\/a> to go unchecked, the more emboldened abusive judges will become.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Legal Accountability Project<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. She regularly writes and speaks about judicial accountability and clerkships. Reach out to her via email at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

The post Inaction On Judge Eleanor Ross Sends A Clear Message: Retaliating Against Whistleblowers Is OK<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
(Image via Getty)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Eleanor Ross<\/a> shouldn\u2019t be a federal judge. She exhibited disturbingly poor judgment<\/a>, lied about it<\/a>, and blamed her law clerk when she got caught. That\u2019s not someone<\/a> who should make life-and-death decisions about litigants\u2019 lives, livelihoods, and liberty. The challenge is how to remove her, since federal judges enjoy life tenure during \u201cgood behavior<\/a>\u201d and can only be removed by congressional impeachment<\/a>, unless they\u2019re pressured by colleagues to step down<\/a> to avoid further discipline.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Everyone seems to be waiting for someone else<\/em> to act. Unfortunately, spineless members of Congress immediately hunkered down in their partisan camps. House and Senate Judiciary Democrats refuse to hold judges accountable for anything<\/em>. They wrongly lionize the judiciary and view judges as a bulwark against autocracy, because judges sometimes rule against Trump administration lawlessness. Leadership \u2014 at least those leaders who even knew who Ross is<\/a> \u2014 said the discipline Ross received was sufficient<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

On the other side of the aisle, two Georgia House Republicans, Clay Fuller and Andrew Clyde, filed articles of impeachment against Ross. Fuller\u2019s rightly focused<\/a> on egregious lack of candor, whereas Clyde\u2019s<\/a> focused on the salacious sexual misconduct. Unfortunately, both misstated the standard<\/a> for impeachment: it\u2019s not \u201chigh crimes and misdemeanors,\u201d but \u201cgood behavior.\u201d Ross is clearly no longer exhibiting good behavior. Neither litigants nor the public should have confidence in her ability to judge others\u2019 veracity while her own veracity is in question, nor trust her rulings when she herself cannot tell the truth.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Back in September 2025, when first confronted<\/a> with allegations against her, Ross lied to the court: denying the allegations and, disturbingly, blaming her law clerk, claiming he made up the allegations in retaliation for a poor performance review. Such an outrageous lie by a life-tenured federal judge should stop us in our tracks. Just two or three<\/a> federal law clerks file complaints against judges<\/a> each year, even though in 2023, the judiciary\u2019s own workplace climate survey<\/a> found as many as 106 judges harassed their clerks. We don\u2019t have a culture of false allegations against judges: we have a culture of fear and gross underreporting, since clerks \u2014 and all judicial branch employees \u2014 are exempt from Title VII<\/a> of the Civil Rights Act and lack legal protection against retaliation for reporting.<\/p>\n

It took Ross several<\/em> supplemental submissions before admitting she lied. And yet, her only \u201cdiscipline<\/a>\u201d was that she was ordered to issue apology letters to six clerks who participated in the investigation. She couldn\u2019t even get that right<\/a>. In her first apology letter, she wrote:<\/p>\n

Thank you for your contributions to our Court during your clerkship. I convey my deepest apology for not taking steps to ensure that it was a more positive experience. I wish you all the best in your future legal endeavors and in life.<\/em><\/p>\n

Sincerely,<\/em><\/p>\n

Judge Ross<\/em><\/p>\n

Four clerks expressed concern<\/a> to Eleventh Circuit Chief Judge Pryor that the apology did not meet the standard \u2014 \u201csufficiently specific so as to make clear to the recipient the sexual misconduct for which the judge is apologizing.\u201d So, Pryor invited Ross to correct her work (something no other workplace would do). In her second apology, Ross apologized to one clerk \u201cfor my false accusation against you.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ross\u2019s \u201cfalse accusation<\/a>\u201d is textbook retaliation<\/a> for participating in an investigation and appears intended to obstruct the investigation into her misconduct, as well as chill complaints and clerks\u2019 participation in future misconduct investigations. We shouldn\u2019t just whistle past this false accusation\u2019s enormous implications on the clerk\u2019s career and reputation, had Ross not admitted she lied. As someone whose own career was derailed<\/a> by a false negative reference the judge I clerked for submitted to my post-clerkship employer five years ago, I understand the enormous power disparity between a federal judge with nearly unchecked power to spread such falsehoods, and a vulnerable clerk.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Disturbingly, Ross admits to retaliating against this clerk<\/a>, in writing<\/em>, yet Pryor declined to identify a second complaint against her to investigate Ross\u2019s efforts to obstruct the investigation through retaliation. Importantly, under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act<\/a> (JCDA), the law governing judicial discipline, Pryor could act absent a second complaint. He has chosen not to. Retaliation is prohibited conduct under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability Proceedings<\/a>. Sadly, Congress lacks judiciary experts with the expertise and motivating personal experience to champion this issue during an impeachment and galvanize support among their colleagues, let alone explain it to their constituents and the public.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Witnessing a judge retaliate against clerks and get away with it reinforces other clerks\u2019 fears about coming forward: they worry<\/a> they\u2019ll be discounted, disbelieved, or retaliated against. Consider this: when a JCDA complaint is filed, a copy is transmitted to the subject judge, who immediately sees the complainant\u2019s name and is not legally prohibited<\/a> from retaliating against them by, for example, providing false negative references<\/a> to employers, getting them blackballed from jobs, bad-mouthing them, and intervening in bar applications. Clerks depend on judges for references and career advancement. That\u2019s why more than 100 abusive sitting federal judges have evaded accountability. The judiciary refuses to self-police: they know this <\/em>Congress<\/a> won\u2019t conduct the rigorous, transparent oversight to force the judiciary\u2019s decades-long fraud perpetrated upon the public into the spotlight to initiate reform.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Congressional Democrats should join Ross\u2019s impeachment proceedings and signal a bipartisan commitment to holding judges accountable for abusing their power. But we can\u2019t discount the politics at play: Republicans want to impeach and remove a Democratic appointee to replace her with a Trump appointee, whereas Democrats will protect their own and keep that judicial seat blue at all costs. But, as one Democrat conceded privately, Democrats protecting someone because she\u2019s on their team is not a good enough reason. When the roles were reversed, and Trump appointee Joshua Kindred<\/a> was referred by the Judicial Council<\/a> to Congress for impeachment in 2024, not a single congressional Democrat filed articles of impeachment. So congressional Democrats\u2019 assertions about accountability and transparency ring hollow.\u00a0<\/p>\n

If we wait for Congress to impeach Ross, we\u2019ll be waiting forever. If we wait for the judiciary to police itself, we\u2019ll be waiting forever. It\u2019s on us to force change.\u00a0<\/p>\n

If you\u2019re outraged judges have free rein to abuse their power \u2014 interpreting our laws while exempt from those same laws \u2014 call your congressperson and urge them to impeach Ross.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Law clerks have agency, too. Mistreated clerks should flood the zone with JCDA complaints. Let\u2019s aim for 10 or 20 complaints, rather than the usual two or three<\/a>, in 2026. Force the judiciary to expend resources investigating. This will prove their process is deeply flawed and, frankly, would be unworkable if anywhere close to the true number<\/a> of mistreated employees filed complaints. They\u2019ll either be incentivized to reform it, or publicly shamed in the press \u2014 literally the only thing motivating them \u2014 each time another judge\u2019s misconduct is uncovered<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Federal judges interpret our laws. They should be held to the highest ethical standards. Right now, they\u2019re literally held to none.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s ethical lapses are particularly salient<\/a> in the public consciousness: many are rightly outraged by apparent ethical violations<\/a>, conflicts of interest<\/a>, and naked partisanship<\/a>. Supreme Court reform, including a code of conduct<\/a>, is a popular Democratic talking point. But lawmakers and candidates fail to understand the code of conduct<\/a> for lower court federal judges \u2014 which applies to Ross \u2014 is unenforceable and unenforced. It relies on law clerks to blow the whistle, which they rarely do, since they\u2019re not legally protected against retaliation; and on judges\u2019 colleagues to self-police misconduct, which, if Pryor is any indication, they do not. We need real reforms, and real reformers; not hollow talking points advanced by people who don\u2019t know what they\u2019re talking about.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Solutions exist, if we had fighters and experts<\/a> in Congress to champion them, and creative thinkers to advance creative solutions. Congress should finally pass the Judiciary Accountability Act<\/a> (JAA), which would extend Title VII, including legal protection against retaliation, to over 30,000 exempt judicial branch employees, closing the legal loophole that currently affords judges immunity for harassing staff. Congress should also pass the Transparency and Responsibility in Upholding Standards in the Judiciary (TRUST) Act<\/a>, which would have prevented abusive judges<\/a> like Mark Wolf<\/a> and Kesha Tanabe<\/a> from resigning amid misconduct investigations to evade accountability altogether. Importantly, Congress should leverage the appropriations process and the judiciary\u2019s annual budget request (which two Supreme Court justices are testifying about<\/a> on the Hill this week) to hold the judiciary accountable for making changes, either by cutting the judiciary\u2019s budget until they implement reforms or tying their funding to meaningful benchmarks for progress.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should finally conduct meaningful oversight over the judiciary, which they\u2019ve refused to do<\/a>, even though \u201cJudiciary\u201d is literally in those committees\u2019 names. Disturbingly, since the Ross matter came to light in late May, House Judiciary Democrats had time to write<\/a> to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) urging them to ban judges and clerks from participating in prediction markets, but could not be bothered<\/em> to send an oversight letter about Ross, draft impeachment articles, join House Republicans\u2019 impeachment efforts, or even learn who Eleanor Ross is<\/em><\/a>. <\/em>Ross affords a clear opportunity to seize the moment and use the national bully pulpit while there\u2019s public attention and bipartisan interest.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Many are rightly demanding transparency and accountability for those in power. Yet members of Congress \u2014 on the news demanding transparency and accountability for Trump administration lawlessness \u2014 suffer from a blind spot surrounding the courts, repeatedly giving judges the benefit of the doubt, which they don\u2019t deserve. Power corrupts: there\u2019s nothing more dangerous than power without accountability<\/a>. Congress has a rare opportunity, given the egregiousness of Ross\u2019s misconduct, to finally fix both the immediate problem \u2013Ross endangering public trust and confidence in the courts \u2014 and a larger system that\u2019s been broken for generations. The longer Congress allows the judiciary\u2019s lawlessness<\/a> to go unchecked, the more emboldened abusive judges will become.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Legal Accountability Project<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. She regularly writes and speaks about judicial accountability and clerkships. Reach out to her via email at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

The post Inaction On Judge Eleanor Ross Sends A Clear Message: Retaliating Against Whistleblowers Is OK<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Image via Getty) Eleanor Ross shouldn\u2019t be a federal judge. She exhibited disturbingly poor judgment, lied about it, and blamed her law clerk when she got caught. That\u2019s not someone who should make life-and-death decisions about litigants\u2019 lives, livelihoods, and liberty. The challenge is how to remove her, since federal judges enjoy life tenure during […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":156762,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-156761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/GettyImages-925082468-620x487-O9sH2H.jpg?fit=620%2C487&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156761","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=156761"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156761\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/156762"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}