Archives for category: Accountability

A journalist in Texas wrote the following. He/she lives in Austin and requested anonymity to avoid reprisals. I have double-checked the information shared. It is accurate.

The journalist describes Governor Greg Abbott’s tactic to destroy public education: state takeovers. This allows the state to dismiss the locally elected school board and replace it with people loyal to Governor Abbott and State Superintendent Mike Morath, a non-educator picked by Abbott. After the state takeover, teachers leave, enrollment declines..public schools being to the state, not to the district.

The journalist wrote the following to me:

Texas public schools are under attack. And no Texas district is being attacked on as many fronts as Austin ISD.

 State policies and targeted investigations are taking a toll, pulling time, energy, and funds from the real work of supporting Austin’s students, teachers, and campus communities. The district is facing a long list of challenges, all created or exacerbated by many years of anti-public school policies from state leaders. Students and teachers feel the impact on campuses every day. Families are leaving the district. Budgets are becoming tighter each year. Charters and vouchers are siphoning students from public schools and concentrating need at many campuses. And despite this community’s deep belief in engaging education, teaching is increasingly focused on testing – the near-inevitable result of a punitive high-stakes testing environment.

 Austin is sometimes described as the blueberry in the tomato soup – the brightest blue community in what has long been a deeply red state. That makes the district a favorite target for state leaders, who routinely attack it to score political points.Students, teachers, families, and the city are suffering as those attacks weaken a district in that should be among the strongest urban districts in the country.

 The community shows up for Austin ISD schools, and people across the economic spectrum continue to choose Austin ISD schools, which educate a mix of students who are diverse in every way. About half come from families classified as having economic disadvantage and half do not. About half are Hispanic, almost a third are emergent bilingual, and nearly one in ten are immigrants from all over the world.

 Austin ISD’s school board looks a lot like the city itself – racially and economically diverse, highly educated, and politically progressive. All were elected with strong support from their local union and their local communities. All serve as volunteers in a role that demands many hours and invites public critique along with the joy. All have seen the impact of state policies on Texas public schools. Many are longtime public education advocates. And all have become far too familiar withthe power the Texas Education Agency holds over Texas districts.

 In Texas, state takeovers are becoming a go-to remedy. Houston ISD was the first big district to fall, in 2023. Then, last year, the pace escalated. A single school with five F ratings in a row can trigger a takeover. Four more districts are now under state control, including Fort Worth ISD – another of the state’s largest urban districts. When the 2026-27 school year began, some 250,000 Texas students walked into classrooms that are now under state control.

 It’s an unprecedented experiment, and an aggressive exercise of state power over local communities. Now Austin ISD – rated a B under the state’s narrow accountability system – is the latest Texas district at risk of state takeover. And that is just the biggest threat among many, many others.

 Here’s a short list of challenges Austin ISD is facing right now:

 

• Investigation of student walkouts

State leaders have targeted Austin ISD for a special investigation after students at many campuses walked out to protest ICE. In a community as diverse as Austin, issues involving immigration are felt deeply and personally. Their protests were part of a student movement across the state and the country in late January. Yet Governor Greg Abbot and Attorney General Ken Paxton have focused special attention on Austin ISD, with an investigation that still has not been completed. The Texas Education Agency has warned that walkouts could lead to a state takeover.

 

• Investigation of which bathroom a single student has used

Attorney General Paxton has also targeted Austin ISD for alleged violations of the state’s “bathroom bill,” which requires people at sites including public schools to use the bathroom that matches their sex at birth. The bill depends on people reporting districts for alleged violations – something that happened two times when someone complained about the bathroom a single transgender student was using at an Austin ISD high school, which was followed by a complaint at the district’s performing arts center. The law holds the district accountable, allowing fines of up to $5000 a day for documented violations. But the law also allows the full weight of the state to be weaponized against individual students – children in public schools.

 

• Funding crisis

For years, public education funding has failed to keep up with inflation or a long and growing list of mandates from the state. Texas consistently ranks in the bottom ten states in per-student funding. Yet schools must also pay for expensive security mandates, serve students who are emergent bilingual or who receive special education services despite funding that leaves immense gaps, and follow many other state demands that are neither optional nor funded. Across the state, dozens of schools have closed, class sizes are growing, programs and student supports are being cut, and teachers are quitting or taking second jobs. Texas offers no funding for many things it simply does not require, including school nurses and school librarians. Transportation is funded at a fraction of the actual cost to districts. In Austin ISD, the 2026-27 budget included about $205 million in deeply painful cuts. The district closed eleven campuses. They are selling property to help plug the holes. And still funding is not keeping up with costs. That crisis has been deepened by the passage of a $1 billion statewide voucher after many years of successful resistance by the Texas Legislature. Passage was only possible after the sitting governor primaried legislators who voted against vouchers, then had President Trump call lawmakers the morning of the vote. The cost is expected to double this year.

 

• State comptroller audit

At a campaign stop in El Paso in August, Governor Greg Abbott asked the Texas Comptroller to investigate the use of taxpayer money at up to four Texas school districts. The goal, according to the Governor, was to prevent funds from “being absorbed by central office growth, administrative bloat, consultants, and the web of noninstructional bureaucracy.” News reports say districts are being asked for data far beyond what an audit focused on the use of funds would require. The list includes lists of library books, demands for documents related to DEI, scrutiny of foreign workers, and information about Social Security numbers that advocates fear is an attempt to understand how many students may be undocumented.

 

• Investigation of Pride Week celebration

Austin ISD has a long history of celebrating Pride Week. Since 2014, that meant supporting activities that included flying Pride flags at district facilities, participating as a district in the community’s Pride Parade, offering age-appropriate activities focused on respect for other people, and supporting campuses that chose to host their own after-school events for families. Staff and families have often said that they have chosen the district because of AISD’s welcoming climate. And the district continued to celebrate Pride Week – along with Juneteenth, Cesar Chavez Day, and other important community celebrations – even after trustees received a death threat targeting the parade. Since 2024, AISD’s Pride Week celebrations have grown smaller and smaller, and less and less visible. In 2026, the district chose not to participate in the community’s parade, inviting PTA leaders to step into the district’s place. As a result, the parade shrank from dozens of people with district support to just a handful. And still, in April, the Texas Education Agency began an investigation into Austin ISD for Pride Week. That investigation was launched in response to a complaint not from within the community, but from a conservative member of the State Board of Education who represents a district in Fort Worth, about 200 miles away. On social media, he called for defunding the district and for a criminal investigation of the superintendent. He also shared concerns that if the practice is not stopped in Austin ISD, it will expand to other communities in the state.

 This is not normal, even in Texas, except for Austin ISD. Each investigation or audit takes precious resources that no Texas district has to spare. Time and funds are diverted from the work that matters most – of educating students, supporting teachers, and inspiring a lifelong love of learning that prepares Austin’s students for the futures they deserve. 

 It does not have to be this way. And it’s both painful and promising to imagine what might be if the State of Texas would offer support rather than sanctions, and if they would also simply get out of the district’s way.

 Austin ISD has a strong board with a broad mix of highly relevant experience. All nine members were endorsed by the district’s union, Education Austin, and all serve by working long hours without pay. Six members are former K-12 educators in Texas public schools – including five who taught in the district, one who worked as the district’s head of multilingual education, and several who are current or former professors in programs that teach future teachers. Another is an educational anthropologist who teaches at UT and ran programs for students in the district. Another is a journalist with a law degree and a long background in advocacy and family engagement. And another is a former foster child who was in the first graduating class of Austin ISD’s Ann Richards School for Young Women Leaders, ranked as one of the top public high schools in the country. Another worked as an accountant after a career as a teacher. Together, the board holds five masters’ degrees, one law degree, and two Ph.Ds. Another trustee is earning a doctorate now. They have hired a superintendent who is a graduate of the district and the son of a longtime teacher. He’s an unconventional choice – with an MBA, an engineering degree, and a career in construction and district operations – but he has also brought stability after a series of rapid superintendent turnovers. And he has worked with the board and community to navigate immensely challenging times.

 As they have tackled issue after issue, district leaders have also managed to do important and thoughtful work in many areas. The community approved a $2.4 billion bond and a crucial increase in the tax rate for operations with powerful support from district voters. The district has created systems to focus resources where they are needed most – essential but also not easy in a district with such a broad range of economic opportunity and economic need. They cleared a large backlog of special education evaluations that grew during the pandemic. They have sharply reduced the number of F-rated campuses and steadily grown the number of highly rated campuses – a measure that must be a focus no matter how flawed and opaque the state’s metrics are. And they are seeing impressive results from a grant-funded investment in early literacy.

 And still, Austin ISD risks being taken over by the state.

 The community’s worry about a takeover goes far beyond the loss of elected control. Their fears are also based in facts about what has happened since the state took control of Houston ISD. State leaders routinely call the takeover an unparalleled success, citing a higher rating for the district and near zero F rated schools. But the costs have been immense – of lost opportunity, financial cost, and damage to community and careers.

 Reports document practices that serve scores but sacrifice student learning – limiting access to 8th grade Algebra by systematically holding some students back, gaming college readiness measures in ways that are legal but offer little benefit, removing both libraries and librarians, and reducing teaching to timed and scripted lessons. Campuses have closed, enrollment has plummeted by more than 20,000 students, and teachers are fleeing. Hundreds of their replacements are uncertified. And the state-appointed leaders have eaten into the district’s fund balance by pulling hundreds of millions from reserves in ways that will be impossible to sustain.

 Good reporting and strategic advocacy are helping the whole story from Houston ISD reach more people. Our state owes deep thanks to Community Voices for Public Education for its advocacy from the beginning, the Commission on the Takeover of HISD for its new in-depth report, state and local education union leaders for advocating and organizing, elected trustees for becoming the resistance, and doctoral student Dan Dawer for work to examine the takeover through an academic lens.

 In Austin, a group called Keep Austin Schools Independent has formed to inform and organize our community. We are also lucky to have strong trustee candidates who are stepping up, not knowing what their role will be but knowing their voices will matter.

 Takeovers are looming for more Texas districts. 

 Education is on the ballot in Texas in a way it has never been before. And the results of the election could make things far better or far worse, not just here in Austin, but also for public schools across our state. Voters in the Democratic primaries chose proven public education supporters up and down the ballot. And for people who know that change is needed for Texas public schools, Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic nominee for Texas Governor, is carrying a whole state’s hopes. She’s the mom of children who chose Austin ISD schools, a former AISD school board president, and a Texas House member who served her community and fought for Texas students on the public education committee. Her office became a place of pilgrimage for public education advocates, who would visit their own representatives, then stop by her office, too.

 A huge amount is at stake – not only for Austin, but for public education statewide. Dozens of Texas districts are just one or two years away from potential takeover. Schools are struggling after years of underfunding. And increasingly, the state’s vision of education is focused on the narrow measure of standardized tests – despite clear evidence that families and educators want and need something more for the 5 million students of Texas

On October 20, Trump offered two rewards.

One was $1 million for anyone who reported voter fraud that led to the arrest and conviction of the fraudsters. So far, no one has claimed the prize, but who knows? There is still time.

The other was a reward for anyone reporting fraud in government spending. That’s the one I wanted to blow the whistle on.

Here is an open-and-shut case of fraud.

In 2025, the private prison operator CoreCivic offered to see a huge prison complex to the state of Minnesota for $75 million. The state turned down the offer.

The same prison complex was purchased by Trump’s Department of Homeland Security a year later for $495 million.

The story was reported by The New York Times:

CoreCivic, a private prison company, approached the Minnesota Department of Corrections last year offering to sell a long-shuttered detention facility. The price: $75 million.

State officials passed. They didn’t have the funds to buy the Prairie Correctional Facility in western Minnesota, nor did they need a prison of its size or have the ability to staff it.

Last summer, to their astonishment, the 1,600-bed prison sold for more than $495 million. The buyer: the Department of Homeland Security.

Why is the federal government getting ripped off?

Clearly somebody at CoreCivic had a big payday.

I went online to learn how to report this fraud.

My report, I discovered, is not covered by the federal whistleblower program.

First of all, the departments covered by statute do not include the Department of Homeland Security. Even if they overpaid by more than $400 million, so what?

The Department of Justice will approve awards pursuant to the Fraud Rewards Program in its sole discretion and may decline to pay a reward as it deems appropriate. At this time, the $10,000 to $30,000 reward payments that are made pursuant to the Fraud Rewards Program will be limited to: (1) Federal health care offenses and related crimes involving health care benefit programs or fraud against patients or others in the health care industry; or (2) fraud on programs or benefits administered by the Department of Agriculture (e.g., the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), the Department of Labor (e.g., unemployment fraud), the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education (e.g., student aid fraud), the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Small Business Administration. The Fraud Rewards Program places a particular emphasis on submissions involving the following subject matter areas: hospice, home health care, day care, and special services fraud.

See? No DHS frauds are covered by the program.

Then, reading through the guidelines, I discovered that I am not eligible to report the fraud because it was published. My knowledge of the fraud comes not from inside information, but from reading about it in The New York Times.

Original Information: An individual must provide, in writing, original information, meaning:

  1. Information that is derived from the individual’s independent knowledge or independent analysis.
    1. Independent knowledge means factual information in the individual’s possession that is not derived from publicly available sources. The individual may gain independent knowledge from their experiences, communications, and observations in their business or social interactions.
    2. Independent analysis means the individual’s own analysis, whether done alone or in combination with others. Analysis means the individual’s examination and evaluation of information that may be publicly available, but which reveals information that is not generally known or available to the public.

In conclusion, I can’t report the fraud because I read about it in the newspaper and it was committed by the DHS.

Kids today! Low expectations! Low standards! Bad teachers! Lazy kids! Cell phones! Social media!

We are in the midst of yet another panic about high schools failing to prepare their students for college. I speak now as an historian. When college enrollments were limited to those who graduated from elite private high schools and to those from public schools with exceptional grades, there was no outcry about unready, unprepared students. When public colleges and universities lowered their admission standards to accept almost anyone who wanted to go to college, the outcry began. It reached a crescendo in 1983 with the publication of the Reagan-era “A Nation at Risk,” which sounded the alarm about low standards and “a rising tide of mediocrity.”

As James Harvey, who was on the research team that drafted “A Nation at Risk” wrote, high-level members of the National Commission on Excellence in Education “cooked the books.” The report was intended to salute American schools for their success in opening their doors to students who were previously excluded or dropped out, but the bigwigs turned it into an indictment instead, cherry-picking statistics to condemn the schools and giving birth to decades of failed “reforms.”

Peter Greene writes here about the current surge in

High school graduates aren’t ready for college! The articles about this problem are popping up all over (here, here and here). Chad Aldeman, who I think of as a relatively level-headed member of the reformy crowd, just dropped a piece passing on UC’s increasing number of math-failing froshies. 

The National Center for Education Statistics has a paper that looks at those numbers for 1999-2000, 2003-2004, and 2007-2008, and while it breaks them down a variety of ways, the overall conclusion is that 1999-2000 was worse than either of the other years sampled, and all of the numbers hovered around the twenties, low or high. But this article from Chicagoland says that over a third of students entering college need remedial help, based on 2008 stats from the government– same as the previous report. A Harvard professor looking at a 2003 study comes up with one third as well. The Inside Higher Ed Bridge to Nowherereport throws around a 30% number. And I would swear that I recently heard 46% tossed into the remediation soup as well. Most of these sources do not compare the current figures to any from the alleged golden age of non-remediation. So can I at least suggest that the numbers are “controversial” or “contested” or maybe even “pulled out of a variety of different orifices”

Apparently today’s freshmen were not saved by an entire educational career spent under the guidance (more or less) of Common Core. But before we start using the success rate of college freshmen as an indictment of high school quality, let me suggest a few more factors to also consider.

Admissions process: As the generations entering college get smaller and smaller, and more and more people decide college isn’t worth the bother and/or expense, colleges are doing their best to fill up with students who possess a warm body and can write checks that don’t bounce. Lowering the bar is going to result in students with less college ready capabilities.

Measuring remediation needs: If we’re talking about students who need remediation, we need to talk about how the college is identifying that need. Because sometimes it’s a not-very-good assessment test.

Marketing: One of the big policy pushes, especially from neoliberals dems, has been to get everyone to go to college. “Get a college education, or you will be doomed to living in a van down by the river eating cat food on a hot plate!” has been a big message, and it has scared a lot of people into college who might have been better served by a trade school or another post-high school option.

And perhaps most important is this last one, because if we’re seeing an actual dip in educational attainment, I can think of one factor that distinguishes the education of the generation now entering college that is different from the generations that came before.

Test-centered education is not great: Today’s college freshmen got thirteen years of more-or-lee (depending on their state) Common Core flavored education, which in practice has meant thirteen years of getting prepped for the Big Standardized Test. If we are questioning the quality of the K-12 system, it seems only sensible to look at the policy that has taken control of K-12 education in this country. Maybe centering education on passing a single mediocre math and reading multiple choice test is not a great idea.

There is an extraordinary irony here. Many of the folks now saying, “Boy, you public school teachers are really messing up your job” are the same folks who spent the last twenty years saying, “Here, public school teachers– we are going to tell you how to do your job and you’re going to listen to us or else.” This is an old education story– “accountability” never means “accountability for policy makers.”

We could dig up a few other responses, like questioning why “just raise expectations” is a useful prescription for high schools, but not for colleges.

And there is always the possibility that this is one more faux crisis. But if there is an issue here, it would be useful to look at it more closely than simply declaring that Kids These Days are graduating from high school with underdeveloped thinky parts and it’s probably the fault of Those Damned Teachers and their lousy public schools.

Adam Kinzinger, former member of Congress, writes powerfully here about the most dangerous threat to our democracy: the super-rich who fund politicians to buy government contracts and/or to determine policy decisions.

Kinzinger was a Republican Congressman from Illinois and a military veteran. He and Liz Cheney were the only Republican members of the January 6 Commission. They knew they would pay a price. Cheney lost her Congressional seat in Wyoming to a Trump-aligned conservative. Kinzinger retired from Congress.

He writes here about the importance of limiting the power of wealthy individuals in politics.

Both parties are susceptible to the lure of big campaign contributions. Democrats and Republicans have accepted money from AIPAC to shape government policy toward Israel.

Trump openly courted specific industries to give money to his campaign in exchange for favorable policies. He promised to protect the fossil fuel industry if they gave significant sums to his campaign. As president, he has delivered. He opened protected federal lands to drilling and has canceled government contracts for wind power and other alternative sources of energy. He has encouraged the revival of coal mining. He has gutted environmental regulations to allow pollution of water and the air. A payback to his donors.

And then there is the case of Elon Musk. He has become the richest man in the world with the help of munificent government contracts. In the past few years, he has deployed his riches to try to buy the government and its policies.

Adam Kinzinger details here the case for getting big money out of politics, or at least limiting its power to buy the government it wants.

He writes:

Last Wednesday, the richest man in the world logged on to the social media platform he owns and issued an ominous threat.

“Live by the sword, die by the sword,” Elon Musk wrote. “Those who pick fights with me should understand that I will find out who is really pulling the strings and come for them, not just their puppets…”

What set him off was a story in Politico reporting that if Democrats win control of Congress next week, they plan to investigate him: his time running DOGE, the federal contracts his companies hold, and reports that he ordered Starlink service slowed for Ukraine’s military. When journalist Kara Swisher suggested on her podcast that he could end up facing legal trouble, he shot back that she “really wants to go to prison.”

To recap, a man whose company is paid billions of dollars by the federal government is warning members of Congress that if they look into how he got that money, he will come after them, and after whoever he decides is behind them.

And he isn’t just posting. He’s paying.

The Wall Street Journal captured it in a single chart. One line belongs to George Soros, the liberal megadonor who has spent the better part of two decades as the right’s favorite villain. It climbs slowly, step by step, over more than twenty years, to roughly $624 million. The other line belongs to Musk. For twenty years, it sits flat at zero. Then, around 2024, it turns and shoots almost straight up, past Soros, to roughly $759 million. Two decades of Soros, overtaken in about two years.

Image

Graph courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

According to a Washington Post analysis of federal filings, Musk has now put about $446 million into this year’s midterm elections alone. That’s the most any individual donor has ever given. It’s well beyond the roughly $290 million he spent electing Donald Trump in 2024. In September, he gave $158 million to the main super PAC backing Republican Senate candidates in just two checks. He’s put another $10 million into a group backing Ken Paxton in Texas.

We have never seen anything like this. And we absolutely should not accept it.

Money has distorted American politics for a long time, and both parties have their megadonors. I spent years in Congress watching how much time members spent dialing for dollars instead of doing their jobs, and how much influence followed the checks. If you’ve ever felt like Washington listens more to the people with money than to people like you, you’re not imagining it. That’s why broad campaign finance reform is needed.

I also believe companies and the people who run them have a right to take part in our political process. That’s part of living in a free country. This column isn’t about that.

This is about something different, and it’s much more dangerous.

Buying the Government That Pays You

Elon Musk isn’t just the richest man in the world. He got there, in large part, with the help of the American taxpayer. SpaceX has received more than $20 billion in federal contracts, with NASA and the Pentagon among its biggest customers. Starlink has become essential infrastructure for our military and our allies. His companies depend on decisions made by the very government he’s now spending hundreds of millions of dollars to shape.

Think about what that means. The man whose company is paid billions by the federal government is spending a fortune to decide who runs the federal government. The senators he helps elect will vote on defense budgets that include his contracts. The agencies that regulate his companies answer to the president he helped put in office. Even if every one of those decisions were made in good faith, how could anyone know?

Here’s the part most people don’t realize: we already decided, decades ago, that this kind of thing is wrong.

For more than 75 years, federal law has barred government contractors from making political contributions. The whole point is to avoid even the appearance that taxpayer-funded contracts are for sale. Courts have upheld that ban even as they’ve struck down other campaign finance laws. Regulators have enforced it against contractors who tried to give to super PACs.

So how is Musk allowed to do this? Because of a loophole. The ban covers the company holding the contract, and federal regulators read it narrowly. In their view, Musk’s spending doesn’t count, because it comes from him as an individual rather than from SpaceX or Tesla. The company can’t spend a dime.

But the man who controls the company can spend nearly half a billion dollars in a single election.

Sell to It or Buy It. Not Both.

I support sweeping campaign finance reform. But the fix for this particular problem isn’t radical, and we don’t have to start from scratch because some states already do it.

New Jersey has a pay-to-play law that doesn’t stop at the company holding the contract. It covers the company’s principal owners, officers, and directors, and anyone who controls 10 percent or more of the business.

Connecticut goes further, covering any shareholder with a stake of 5 percent or more.

Both laws were passed after real scandals, by legislators who saw what happens when contracts and campaign cash get tangled together. And they’ve worked. New Jersey’s own election watchdog said its law was achieving exactly what it was meant to do: reducing political contributions from the people doing business with the government.

Congress should do the same thing at the federal level. Extend the existing contractor ban to cover the owners, executives, and major shareholders of companies that take big federal contracts. Apply it to everyone, on the left and the right, no matter which party they support.

Nobody needs to take anything away from Elon Musk. This is just a very reasonable choice: if you want to keep selling to the United States government, you don’t get to buy it too. If you’d rather spend unlimited money on elections, you’re free to stop bidding on taxpayer contracts.

Pick one.

What Money Can’t Buy

Elon Musk can buy a lot of things. He can buy television ads in every market in America. He can buy a social media platform and tilt it toward the candidates he likes. He can fund a get-out-the-vote operation bigger than some political parties.

What he can’t buy is your vote. Not unless you let him.

A week from now, Americans will decide this election, not Elon Musk. Every ad he pays for still has to convince a person. Every dollar he spends still has to get past the voter in the booth. That’s the one place in American democracy where the richest man in the world and a retired schoolteacher in Ohio count exactly the same.

So show up. Bring someone with you. And then let’s get to work making sure that no one, no matter how rich, can ever again buy the government that pays them.

— Adam

Julian Vasquez-Heilig is a scholar and activist who has been a leader in studying and promoting equal access to educational opportunity for all students.

He writes here about the consequences for Texas students, teachers, and communities if Gina Hinojosa manages to get elected Governor of Texas next week. She is heavily outspent by Governor Greg Abbott, who is seeking his fourth term, yet the polls show that the race is virtually tied. The latest reports show that Abbott has a campaign chest of nearly $100 million, while Hinojosa has raised $7-8 million.

Abbott has been a forceful advocate for privatization of public schools, pushing the Republican-controlled legislature to authorize charter schools and vouchers. Rural Republicans opposed vouchers, so Abbott got $12 million from Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass to defeat the anti-voucher Republicans.

If Abbott wins, expect a doubling of the voucher budget from $1 billion a year to $2 billion a year. That increase was recently proposed by Don Huffines, the state’s chief financial officer. Expect an increase in funding for privately-managed charter schools and less oversight. Expect a steady erosion of public schools and low pay for teachers.

Vasquez-Heilig describes what to expect if Hinojosa wins:

The midterm vote in the United States could do more than change who holds political power; it could determine the future of education.

First, congrats to Lula for his big victory this week in the national Brazilian elections! Incidentally, a Brazilian university recruited me for a Fulbright project that past year examining how Brazil was recovering and reinventing its education system after Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency. After the invitation, I applied and Fulbright faculty peer reviewers scored and approved the proposal. Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department then rejected it. I was not given an explanation establishing why they rejected the invited and reviewer approved Fulbright, although I couldn’t help wondering whether examining the innovation of the education system after Bolsonaro was an uncomfortable subject for the Trump Administration.

The experience left me thinking about questions much closer to home. What would it take to reimagine and rebuild education in the United States after the midterms? More specifically, what might be possible in Texas after more than a decade under Governor Greg Abbott as a case study? 

I spent eight years as a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, studying educational equity, civil rights, school accountability, and privatization. During my time in Texas, I witnessed how nakedly political decisions shaped educational opportunities for millions of students and the educators who served them. With State Representative Gina Hinojosa now challenging Abbott for governor, I have examined her official education platform and considering what could change if Texas takes a different political direction. 

The possibilities extend well beyond one state, considering that the Republican’s ideas for education are all over the place (charter schools, vouchers, banning curriculum etc). Texas offers a compelling case study of how shifts in political leadership after the midterms could reshape educational policy, governance, and public investment in states transitioning from Republican to Democratic control. What happens in Texas could offer important lessons for the future of public education across the country.

For my case study, I examine ten possibilities. Some of the ideas below are commitments Hinojosa has publicly made. Others are reforms I believe deserve consideration, particularly in higher education and financial accountability.

1. The Texas Education Agency Would Get an Educator as Commissioner

Hinojosa has explicitly promised to remove Texas Education Agency non-educator Commissioner Mike Morath and appoint an educator. This could fundamentally change the agency’s relationship with schools. The next commissioner would bring direct experience with teaching and learning to an organization responsible for overseeing millions of students, school accountability, state interventions, and billions in education spending.

The consequential question would be whether that professional background will actually translate into different institutional priorities. Texas educators have spent years operating under accountability pressures, staffing shortages, and extensive state requirements. A commissioner with educator experience could approach those challenges with a different understanding of what teachers and students need, although successful administration would also require considerable policy and management expertise.

Earlier I provide some persepctives on California’s newly implemented commissioner position here.

2. Houston and Other State-Controlled Districts Could Return to Their Communities

Hinojosa promises to end state takeovers and restore local governance. Houston ISD offers the most consequential example, with state-appointed leaders making major decisions about instruction, staffing, and campus operations after the 2023 state takeover ostensibly due to single test score in a single high school. For the Republican in Texas, local control has meant controlling people locally.

The educational record deserves careful examination. State officials and takeover supporters cite improved academic ratings at historically struggling campuses in Houston, while critics have raised concerns about teacher turnover (about 12,000 have left the district), instructional restrictions and canned curriculum, elimination of an elected school board, and the manipulation of student populations to show fake results. A transition back to community governance would produce actual improvements while restoring democratic accountability.

Fort Worth, Austin, and other districts facing or experiencing state takeover present similar questions about who makes decisions and how communities regain authority over their schools.

3. Testing and Accountability System Would Be Revised

Hinojosa has proposed ending STAAR, pausing A through F accountability ratings, and developing a new system. Her campaign reports that TEA has awarded more than $1.7 billion to testing vendors during Abbott’s governorship.

During my years at UT Austin, I studied how high-stakes accountability affected schools serving historically marginalized communities in Texas. That research shaped my advocacy for community-based accountabilityand multiple measures of school success. This revised system could place greater emphasis on academic growth, graduation, student engagement, access to advanced coursework, and the opportunity to learn. Such changes would require legislation and a credible replacement system that gives families actually useful information about school performance.

4. Voucher Spending Could Face a Comprehensive Audit

Texas has committed $1 billion to its new private school voucher program, which Hinojosa proposes to end. A comprehensive financial review could examine who received funds, what providers charged, whether expenses met legal requirements, and whether safeguards adequately protected taxpayers.

Other states offer reasons to investigate. In Arizona, the media has reviewed records showing that education savings account money had been spent on travel-related expenses across 44 states and 13 countries. More than 100 accounts were associated with at least $21,000 in spending at Disney parks, Disney stores, and Disney’s streaming service. Some expenditures may have been approved under existing program rules, which makes the distinction between legal spending and appropriate public spending particularly important.

Texas investigators could carefully examine whether its own program permits comparable purchases, whether vendors are properly screened, and whether families and providers comply with spending restrictions. Arizona’s experience is a warning about oversight. I recently heard at the Network for Public Education conference that Florida has a $1 billion state budget deficit due to unlimited vouchers; that’s another warning.

5. Charter School Financial Misconduct Could Face Stronger Enforcement

Texas already has a documented history of serious charter school spending controversies. Consider IDEA Public Schools, one of the nation’s largest charter networks. Its leadership faced scrutiny over plans involving private aircraft and expenditures of approximately $400,000 on premium San Antonio Spurs tickets and luxury seating. Reports also described a proposed private jet lease, executive travel expenses, related-party business arrangements, and the acquisition of a boutique hotel. Former CEO Tom Torkelson departed with a reported $900,000 severance package. In 2024, TEA placed IDEA under conservatorship following a years-long investigation into financial and operational misconduct.

Texas could strengthen financial disclosure requirements, investigate conflicts of interest, recover improperly spent funds where legally possible, and refer substantiated fraud to law enforcement. Prosecutions should follow evidence of criminal violations rather than assumptions about an institution’s charter status.

6. Abbott’s University Regents Could Be Replaced

Texas governors exercise substantial influence over higher education through appointments to university governing boards. At the University of Texas System, nine regents serve staggered six-year terms and require Senate confirmation. A new governor would inherit those existing terms. However, three UT regent terms are scheduled to expire in February 2027, creating an early opportunity for appointments if successors are confirmed. 

New appointments could change the governing boards’ approach to presidential selection, academic freedom, institutional performance, and faculty governance. They could also prompt closer examination of whether political relationships have been given undue weight in university leadership appointments.

Hinojosa has not announced a comprehensive regent replacement agenda, and current regents cannot simply be dismissed for their political associations in theory. Nevertheless, governing board appointments would be an important part of any change in Texas higher education policy.

7. University Presidents, Provosts, and Deans Could Face New Evaluations

Changes to governing boards could eventually produce changes in university leadership. Presidents are selected and evaluated through governing structures, while presidents exercise substantial authority over the appointment and dismissal of provosts, deans, and other academic administrators. The University of Texas System’s rules generally delegate responsibility for appointing and dismissing institutional administrative officers to university presidents. 

A new governing board could examine whether presidents were selected through credible processes, whether administrative appointments emphasized academic qualifications, and whether leaders delivered results in enrollment, research, student success, and institutional governance. Where community-wide evaluations establish serious leadership failures, governing boards and presidents could make personnel changes consistent with applicable rules and contracts. 

8. Black, Latino, Indigenous, and Gender Studies Could Regain Support

Texas universities have faced substantial political and legislative pressure concerning diversity initiatives, academic programs, and the teaching of race and gender. A change in state leadership could reopen discussions about the important place of Black Studies, Latino Studies, Indigenous Studies, Gender Studies, and related fields within public universities in our democracy.

These disciplines contribute to historical understanding, scholarship, public policy, and students’ ability to examine complex social questions. Decisions about their academic standing should involve faculty expertise, scholarly standards, student demand, and institutional missions.

Restoring programs affected by state policies could require legislative changes, governing board action, institutional funding, and faculty recruitment. Hinojosa has not explicitly promised these restorations, but her administration’s approach to higher education appointments and governance could influence their future.

9. Teachers Could Receive Higher Pay and Greater Professional Influence

Hinojosa’s education platform calls for raising teacher salaries and reviewing vendor contracts that her campaign considers wasteful or improper. She proposes using recovered resources to support educators.

Texas would need to determine how much money contract reviews could actually recover and whether those savings would support recurring compensation increases. Significant statewide salary changes would likely require legislative appropriations.

10. We Can Reconsider the Relationship Between Education and Political Power

For too long, political leaders, including the governors, education commissioners, and state legislatures, have used the power of government to exert oppressive pressure on public schools, educators, universities, and the communities they serve. Through state takeovers, punitive accountability systems, restrictions on academic freedom, increasingly centralized decision-making, and privatizing our schools, communities have too often been treated as problems to be managed rather than partners capable of developing solutions. Political authority has been used to impose decisions while diminishing the voices of parents, teachers, students, and locally elected representatives.

A different approach in Texas and elsewhere after the midterms would begin by recognizing that communities are the solution, not the problem. That principle should apply equally to red and blue communities, rural towns and major cities, and neighborhoods across every region. Families and educators understand their local schools, their children’s needs, and the challenges facing their communities. Their knowledge deserves meaningful influence over educational decisions. Restoring public trust requires moving away from political coercion and toward shared responsibility, meaningful local governance, transparent accountability, and genuine community participation.

After the midterms we will have an opportunity to reconsider how political power is exercised in education. Governors, commissioners, and legislators should use their authority to support communities, expand educational opportunity, and provide the resources schools need to succeed. The ultimate measure of leadership should be whether public institutions strengthen the capacity of people to shape their own futures. Regardless of whether a community votes red or blue, its children deserve excellent public schools, its educators deserve professional respect, and its residents deserve a meaningful voice in the decisions affecting their lives. A stronger education system can emerge when state leaders begin trusting communities as essential partners in educational improvement.

Years from now, our children may not remember who won the midterms. But they will live with what the winners chose to build, whose voices they listened to, and whose futures they believed were worth investing in.

Imagine this scenario: a candidate for Governor of a major state pays for a campaign ad that portrays his opponent as a liar. That in itself is not unusual. But suppose that candidate’s staff has located the mother of his opponent and has persuaded her (paid her?) to make an ad saying that her daughter is a liar, is possibly mentally unstable, and should not be elected Governor.

But this is what’s left out of the story. The context. The target of the ad–Dr. Amy Acton– has not spoken to her mother in more than 40 years. Between the ages of 9 or 10 and 12, she was raped by her stepfather. He was indicted by a grand jury for child rape but fled the state before trial. The candidate’s mother never divorced the man who raped her daughter. The daughter and her brother were removed from their mother’s care.

The mother is a felon, charged repeatedly for non-violent crimes like fraud, writing bad checks, and even animal cruelty.

The ad in which Dr. Amy Acton’s mother attacks her is the dirtiest trick of the midterm elections. It was funded by Vivek Ramaswamy, a billionaire who is running for governor of Ohio. Vivek must have gotten tired of hearing his Democratic opponent, Dr. Amy Acton, talk about living in distressful conditions as a child. Someone on his staff found Acton’s birth mother, who lied on video to hurt her daughter yet again.

How painful for Amy Acton, who suffered through a horrible childhood, was estranged from her negligent mother, and now must endure the pain of being insulted by the mother who failed to intervene to stop the rapes and protect her daughter.

Amy Acton rose above her childhood abuse, went to college, then to medical school and became a doctor. Before she entered the race for Governor, she served Republican Governor Mike DeWine as Ohio’s Director of the state Department of Health.

Governor Mike DeWine urged Ramaswamy to take down the ad; so did other Republican state officials.

But Trump thought it was a terrific ad and urged Ramaswamy to keep running it. Trump tends to side with men accused of sexual assault, never with their victims. Vivek plans to spend $4 million to continue to run the campaign ad.

Trump and JD Vance saw nothing wrong with the ad attacking Acton. Vance said that critics should “stop whining” about the ad and focus on winning.

The one sure conclusion I reach is that these men don’t care if children are sexually assaulted and raped. They side with rapists and pedophiles, not their victims.

To these symbols of “manliness,” women don’t count.

These men are unfit to hold office.

Expanding on the story that Heather Cox Richardson told in the previous post, the following story in The New York Times explained the deal-making arranged by Jard Kushner and Howard Witkoff, two amateurs chosen by Trump to negotiate a peace plan to end the war that Russia started when it invaded Ukraine in 2023.

Now we know why Kushner and Witkoff emerged from their meetings with Putin wreathed in smiles. They got no concessions from Putin about ending the war. Their “peace plan” is to demand that Zelensky give Putin everything has done. Their peace plan is to demand that Zelensky surrender whatever Putin wants.

What they did get was Putin’s commitment to a massive project between the US and Rymussis to drill for liquified natural gas in Alaska.

The New York Times reported:

At first blush, the proposed venture looks like it would further the Trump administration’s goal of global “energy dominance.”

An American energy company intends to buy Russian technology and use it to access a massive supply of natural gas in Alaska, liquefy it and export it to allies abroad.

The Kremlin and the White House were interested in the idea. President Vladimir V. Putin discussed the plan last month with President Trump’s peace envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, people familiar with the negotiations said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy. It is one of a series of energy deals White House officials believe could help smooth relations with Moscow and eventually pave the way to end the war in Ukraine.

But it turns out that the company was not an all-American affair. The multibillion-dollar project has received secret funding from the same powerful Russian company that was to provide the technology, according to the energy executive who until last month led the U.S. firm and two others involved in company negotiations.

Joel Riddle, who was chief executive of the company, Polar LNG, until he resigned in September, said he had been misled about the sources of the start-up funding, which ostensibly came from a company in the United Arab Emirates.

Instead, Mr. Riddle said he learned, the true source of at least some of Polar LNG’s money was Novatek, a Russian energy giant under partial U.S. sanctions.

“It’s not only unlawful, but it’s not in the U.S. interest to have Russian technology controlling the commercialization of Arctic gas in the North Slope,” Mr. Riddle said in a brief interview.

These previously unreported tensions were also detailed in legal memos that Mr. Riddle attached to his resignation letter, which was reviewed by The New York Times. The memos, prepared by Baker Botts, an international law firm, said the Treasury Department’s sanctions enforcement unit had raised concerns that Polar LNG had ties to Novatek that might present “potential Russia-related sanctions concerns.”

Polar LNG on Friday issued a statement announcing a new acting chief executive, Tim Talkington, and described Mr. Riddle as a “disgruntled former employee.”

The project, if it happens, is a long way off. In addition to the sanctions issues that would have to be negotiated, the technology envisioned is highly complex and must overcome some of the most brutal weather conditions in the United States. It also is competing with another Alaska gas plan that already has the support of the Trump administration. But that the Polar LNG deal is being discussed at all shows how business deals of almost any stripe are on the table during the talks with the Kremlin.

The sequence of events illustrates the unorthodox, opaque mixture of deal-making and high-stakes diplomacy that has defined Mr. Trump’s attempts to end Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II.

There is no indication that Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner were aware of Polar LNG or its ties to Novatek, even as the broad outlines of the deal came up in their talks with Mr. Putin beginning last year. A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the closed-door talks, said that the deal had only been broadly mentioned and that no granular discussions had occurred.

The project, should it ever come to fruition, would doubly help Novatek, one of Russia’s biggest energy companies, first by using Novatek’s technology and second because the company would own an equity stake.

The Alaska gas discussions have taken place alongside talks to sell off part of another Russian energy giant, Lukoil, to the U.S. government and other investors, including some with business ties to Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner, causing consternation among some Washington lawmakers and outraging some of Ukraine’s supporters. The pair have also discussed the possibility of U.S. involvement in future Russian gas exports to Europe. (The administration has said that Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff were guided only by U.S. interests.)

Geoffrey R. Pyatt, who served as an assistant secretary of state for energy resources during the Biden administration, said the idea of bringing Novatek into the high north of Alaska is a terrible one. “It is terrible on environmental grounds, it is a terrible idea on economic and geopolitical grounds, and most importantly this feeds the belief that Putin can get an out-of-jail-free card.”

The efforts to bring Novatek equipment to Alaska have also included a businessman, Gentry Beach, with ties to the Trump family. A college friend of Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, Mr. Beach served as a finance vice chairman for Mr. Trump’s 2017 inauguration. Mr. Beach said in February that he had held negotiations with Novatekabout bringing its natural gas technology to Alaska.

Mr. Beach could not be reached for comment. It was not clear if he remained involved in the project, or whether he was aware of Novatek’s potential ownership stake in Polar LNG.

A spokesman for Donald Trump Jr. said the two men were no longer close, adding that Mr. Trump was not involved in the Polar LNG project. Novatek’s statement said that Mr. Beach had no role in its discussions to take a stake in Polar LNG. The U.S. official said Mr. Beach was not involved in the administration’s discussions related to Novatek.

Mr. Riddle is one of at least three Polar LNG executives who recently resigned. As they departed, Trump officials were notified about their concerns related to the secret Russian financing. Mr. Riddle said the executives had urged administration officials to investigate the matter. The Energy Department, where the warning was sent, did not respond when asked about the matter.

“I felt like I did the right thing to notify authorities at the appropriate time,” Mr. Riddle said.

The Polar LNG plan called for the company to tap into the giant load of natural gas available in the northern reaches of Alaska, a byproduct of extensive oil extraction underway in the region.

Polar LNG’s proposal calls for it to buy a giant, 640,000-ton concrete-and-steel device from Novatek called a gravity-based structure that would be placed on the seabed just above the northern coast of Alaska, in an area known as Milne Point.

Map locates Milne Point, Alaska.

On top of that platform, equipment will be installed that would refrigerate gas supplied by an area oil producer, transforming it into a liquid that can then be loaded onto ships that travel through icy waters and deliver it to customers in Asia.

Novatek uses a similar approach to export natural gas from the Russian Arctic in a project called Arctic LNG 2. Mr. Putin said publicly last year that “we are discussing with our American partners” the possibility of using Novatek technology to produce liquefied natural gas in Alaska.

Korean-made ships with a special ice-breaking design that Polar LNG plans to use were initially built for Novatek, but delivery was stopped by the manufacturer after the United States imposed sanctions on the Arctic LNG 2 project.

From the start, Novatek was slated to supply the gas liquefaction station. But financing for the project was not supposed to come from Russia, according to executives involved in the effort.

Emphasizing the point, Polar LNG features images of the American flag and a bald eagle on its website, boasting that “Polar LNG helps ensure the United States leads,” adding that the project is “America’s Arctic Advantage.”

The company hired lobbyists in Washingtonand in Alaska to help push the project, according to federal and state records. In Washington alone, the company is spending $380,000 a quarter on lobbying, hiring a former Trump-era Interior Department acting assistant secretary, Adam Suess.

Novatek is already under U.S. sanctions that would require the Treasury Department to issue a license for its equipment to be used in Alaska. Recently passed sanctions legislation named after deceased Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, makes things even harder: The bill specifically targets Novatek, as well as its Arctic LNG 2 project, because of the company’s ties to Mr. Putin.

However, Mr. Trump temporarily waived the law’s Russia sanctions last week, presenting the move as necessary to keep peace talks going.

During a meeting held at the Four Seasons Hotel in late August in Abu Dhabi between executives of Polar LNG and its parent company, Tech Wave Industrial Projects Management, top executives from Novatek were present. That was when Mr. Riddle began to appreciate that Novatek was directly involved in approving funding to keep the effort going, text messages reviewed by The Times indicate.

Tech Wave is an Abu Dhabi-based company that specializes in managing oil, gas and construction projects. Its chief operating officer is Bjorn Gundersen, who a decade ago was listed in oil industry trade publications as a senior executive at Novatek supervising LNG projects.

A second Tech Wave executive, Ahmed Farghaly, also worked for Novatek until recently. According to his LinkedIn profile, he left around the time the United States firstimposed sanctions on one of Novatek’s LNG projects.

Tech Wave, in a statement, confirmed that Mr. Gundersen had worked for Novatek before 2022, the year the war with Ukraine started. It also said Novatek “has no ownership interest” in the company. The statement did not address questions from The Times as to whether Novatek money helped finance the Polar LNG efforts.

Denis Solovyov, Novatek’s deputy chairman, and Leonid Mikhelson, the company’s chief executive, discussed their company’s providing as much as $15 million to Tech Wave to bankroll Polar LNG, the messages say. Asked about the messages and the Abu Dhabi meeting, Novatek said it could not comment on private correspondence, but that the company and Polar LNG had agreed to “provide each other with open communication.”

“All the necessary decisions were made at the meeting in Abu Dhabi,” Mr. Solovyov wrote in one message to Mr. Riddle sent in early September. “The first 5 million were supposed to arrive by today.”

It was several weeks after this exchange that Mr. Riddle resigned. Two other top Polar LNG executives, Dan Chandra, the company’s chief financial officer, and Jim Smith, a former Exxon Mobil executive who served as Polar LNG’s executive vice president, also have left in recent weeks.

Polar LNG, in a statement Friday, said that “Riddle was recently terminated from the company for cause,” adding: “The company is investigating claims concerning Riddle that may result in litigation.”

But Mr. Riddle resigned six days before the company issued him a letter saying it would terminate his employment immediately, in part because he had raised concerns that some of the company’s actions could be “subject to sanctions,” documents obtained by The Times show.

Questions about the potential ties to Novatek had by late this summer already reached Trump administration officials, according to a memo prepared by an outside law firm for Polar LNG, Baker Botts.

“Concerns regarding a perceived connection to Novatek will likely affect licensing or other regulatory approvals,” Baker Botts wrote in a memo to company executives that was shared with The Times.

In addition, the letter said that federal officials had already made clear in communications with the company that they were concerned that an investor in Polar LNG “has ties to Novatek and may be acting on Novatek’s behalf with respect to the project.”

Paul Luther, a Baker Botts lawyer who worked on the matter, declined on Friday to discuss it further.

Polar LNG would need a series of approvals from the federal government before the deal could move ahead, including a sign-off from the Treasury Department authorizing it to acquire the Novatek seabed platform, given that parts of the company are under sanctions. It would also require a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to build a gas export facility.

Questions have already emerged about whether the Novatek device will function at the planned Milne Point location because of shallow waters there and the “potential disruption to traditional whaling and local opposition, particularly from the local native Alaskan population,” a lawyer for Polar LNG wrote in an internal company memo.

Certain Trump administration officials had already expressed skepticism about the Polar LNG plan, according to internal company documents seen by The Times and interviews with some of the people involved.

Part of the concern is that the Polar LNG project would be pitted against an even more ambitious plan to build a $50 billion, 800-mile natural gas pipeline to move natural gas from the northern slope to the southern coast of Alaska, where it could be more easily shipped out from existing ports there. That plan would also potentially supply Asian markets.

Both the Biden and Trump administrations enthusiastically embraced the gas pipeline project, which Japan and Korea may help finance to increase their reliable supply of natural gas.

“The pipeline makes far more sense,” said Matthew McManus, who until April 2025 served as a deputy director at the State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resources and is now at the National Center for Energy Analytics. “The Polar LNG project would face years of permitting and concerns about ties to Russia.”

Mr. Talkington, Polar LNG’s acting chief executive, said his company sought to seize “a generational opportunity to advance U.S. energy dominance, unlock profound benefits for the state of Alaska, and strengthen American Arctic navigation.”

The fact that discussions are even going on about using Russian equipment — and potentially a Russian-financed company — to move American natural gas to international markets is a further insult to Ukraine, and should not be a part of talks over a possible end to the war, said Ilya Zaslavskiy, a gas industry consultant who previously worked in Moscow and New York who now does research on Russian sanctions and energy issues out of Washington.

“Any approach by Novatek to transfer technology should be seen as a Kremlin attempt to co-opt U.S. policymakers in order to undermine U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and our allies,” Mr. Zaslavskiy said.

When Republicans start losing, they get desperate and spread lies. The best lies are created by Russian bots. Politifact rated a vile video attacking Talarico as a pedophile as an AI fake.

Politifact reported:

This video shows a former James Talarico student accusing him of misconduct.

Pants on Fire!

2026 MIDTERMSARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCETEXASX POSTS

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Texas state Rep. James Talarico arrives at a campaign event in Plano, Texas, on Oct. 18, 2026. (AP)
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Texas state Rep. James Talarico arrives at a campaign event in Plano, Texas, on Oct. 18, 2026. (AP)

By Jeff Cercone
October 22, 2026

Russian disinformation group targets James Talarico with baseless claim in AI-generated video

IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT

  • The Russian disinformation campaign known as Storm-1516 used artificial intelligence to create a video that impersonated a real man, and claimed it showed a former student accusing James Talarico of misconduct, researchers say.
  • The account that initially shared the video was created in September and is based in Romania, NewsGuard reported.

See the sources for this fact-check

A social media video purporting to show a former student accusing Texas Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico of sexual misconduct is the latest example of how Russian groups are generating false information to influence U.S. elections, researchers say.

As of Oct. 22, X had suspended the account that originally posted the baseless claim, but other accounts have since shared it. NewsGuard, a company that tracks online misinformation, reported that X said the account was created in September with Romania as the signup country. 

Talarico spokesperson JT Ennis issued an emailed statement to PolitiFact about the video.

“The most powerful people in the world know they can’t beat James Talarico with the truth, so they’re slandering him with AI deepfakes, foreign bots, and conspiracy theories to protect their broken, corrupt political system,” Ennis said.

What we know about the video’s origin

Darren Linvill, a Clemson University professor and head of its Media Forensic Hub, said the video is the work of Storm-1516, a Russian propaganda campaign he said made a similar baseless attack on Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz in 2024 when Walz ran for vice president. In 2024, the group used a paid actor from West Africa to attack Walz, Linvill said.

Linvill said this video was generated to look like a real man who has an account on another platform. The video shows a man claiming to have been a former student of Talarico at Rhodes Middle School in San Antonio, Texas, where Talarico taught Language Arts before his political career as a state representative.

Graphika, a social media analytics company, said in a blog post that the X account that originally shared the video “very likely” impersonated a Facebook user by the same name. That person lives in Texas and was a former student of Talarico. The man has praised Talarico on his Facebook page on several occasions, as recently as February, Graphika noted.

Fact-checkers at Lead Stories spoke with that man and he said the video is not of him, and denied accusing Talarico of misconduct. PolitiFact reached out to him via Facebook, but he didn’t immediately respond. PolitiFact’s review of the man’s Facebook page found no video of him accusing Talarico.

NewsGuard reported that the videos had many signs of AI generation, such as unnatural eye movements and stagnant facial expressions, and that an AI detection tool showed a 98% likelihood of being a deepfake. A deepfake is a machine generated image or video that changes faces, bodies or voices, making people appear to do and say things that they never did or said. 

Graphika said social media accounts known to amplify Storm-1516 content and several accounts from U.S. conservatives shared the video. It said a prominent Storm-1516 amplifier, SGAnon, originally shared the video, then deleted it, writing on X that an analysis showed it was “artificially generated.”

The Russian disinformation playbook

Linvill said Storm-1516 typically uses the same influencers to spread false narratives into political conversations.

“If you examine the recent content of the influencers who first shared this narrative you can easily identify other Storm-1516 lies,” Linvill said. “We believe they are paid to do this. In the same way marketing companies pay influencers to share products, the Russians pay influencers to share lies.”

The New York Times recently reported that Russia and other foreign governments have stepped up efforts to influence U.S. elections, mostly targeting Democrats.

Linvill co-wrote a recent report about Storm-1516 and its work targeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and found such campaigns often are not aimed at changing people’s behavior or opinions, but seek to shape public discourse.

He said the study’s findings apply to this baseless Talarico narrative.

“By entrenching people in this view of Talarico, the Russians likely hope to exacerbate extreme partisanship and also encourage people to get off the couch and vote for Ken Paxton,” Linvill said. “People who already like Talarico are going to dismiss this claim as the obvious fake it is, but they aren’t the audience.”

We rate the claim that this video shows Talarico’s former student accusing him of misconduct Pants on Fire! 

Our Sources

X post, Oct. 20, 2026

X post, Oct. 21, 2026

X post, Oct. 22, 2026

X post, Oct. 22, 2026

SGAnon, X post, Oct. 20, 2026

Facebook post, Feb. 14, 2026

Facebook post, May 25, 2021

Facebook page

NewsGuard, Russian Deepfake Accuses Talarico of Sexually Abusing Student, Oct. 21, 2026

Lead Stories, Fact Check: FAKE Video Shows Man Claiming to Be Ex-Student of Democratic Senate Nominee James Talarico — Real Zyon Lewis Says It Is Not Him, Oct. 21, 2026

Darren Linvill, Professor, Clemson University Media Forensics Hub, X posts, Oct. 21, 2026

Darren Linvill, Professor, Clemson University Media Forensics Hub, email interview, Oct. 22, 2026

PNAS, State- sponsored agenda setting: Measuring the impact of narrative laundering, Aug. 3, 2026 

Graphika, research brief shared with PolitiFact, Oct. 22, 2026

Graphika, Storm-1516 Produces Very Likely Deepfake Videos of Student Accusing Democratic Senate Candidate of Sexual Assault, Oct. 21, 2026

Alethea spokesperson, email interview, Oct. 22, 2026

The Gnida Project, X post, Oct. 21, 2026 

Agence France-Presse, Tim Walz targeted by unfounded sexual abuse claim, Oct. 21, 2024

The New York Times, Russia Appears to Step Up Efforts to Influence U.S. Voters, Oct. 16, 2026

What is Donald Trump thinking about most of the time? To begin with, he’s traveling the nation now–mostly to red districts and red states–in hopes of holding on to unrestrained power. And he’s certainly on the lookout for opportunities to make more money, for himself and his children. There can never be enough money.

But his peculiar obsession is redecorating. He can’t leave anything alone. And he doesn’t want anyone to stop him once he gets a bee in his bonnet.

He tore down the East Wing of the White House last fall, on the day after the big No Kings Day, a sort of FU to the millions who joined protests against his peremptory rule. His response: I am a king, I don’t need no stinking approval by historical review boards or environmental review boards or anyone else. When a judge said he did need those approvals, he fired every member of those nonpartisan boards and stacked them with his sycophants and employees. Problem solved.

He’s following the same process with his other redecorating ideas: the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performjng Arts (which will close for two years because a judge wouldn’t let him become a co-equal with John F. Kennedy as an honoree of the memorial); the Lincoln Reflecting pool, the Arch of Trump, the painting of the granite Executive Office Building (experts have cautioned granite should not be painted).

Other changes, large and small, consume his time: turning the austere Oval Office into a gold-bedecked bordello; fencing in Lafayette Park, across from the White House; paving over Jackie Kennedy’s Rose Garden. Also, the Oval Office now has a very large sign in gold lettering, saying “The Oval Office.”

The latest manifestation of his redecoration of the nation’s Capitol is his plan to turn a popular public golf course into a championship course that would attract major PGA tournaments.

When environmental and civic groups heard about his plan, they sued to block it until there was proper vetting of the project. How would it affect the numerous trees on the site? Would the public still have access? Would it still be affordable to the people who live in the District?

The judge told the Interior Department and the National Park Service not to start this project without getting her approval. They delivered their plan at 5 pm on Friday before the Columbus Day weekend. The next day, nearly 500 mature trees were cut down. She was furious. Trump didn’t care. That’s the way he rolls.

James Fallows wrote about why this controversy matters. It removes important public facilities to replace them with his PGA GOLF COURSE.

Here is Fallows’ opening:

An image Donald Trump posted this morning, of his vision for the locally cherished East Potomac Park golf courses in DC. Last weekend, Trump operatives illegally cut down hundreds of mature trees on the courses. Today he announced plans to close the courses altogether next month, to convert them to a PGA venue. DC-ites will note that this plan entirely eliminates the famous bike and running path around the perimeter of Hains Point, which among other things is a featured part of the annual Marine Corps Marathon. (Trump posting.)….

When I put up my previous chronicle, a federal judge was throwing the book at MAGA officials from the White House, the Interior Department, and the National Park Service for their illegal, surprise-attack toppling of several hundred mature trees at East Potomac Park, in Washington. (Also known as Hains Point.) 

This desecration cut especially deep for people in the DC area, even when compared with … everything else. It’s not just that it will take another century to replace trees that were a hundred years old. It’s that Hains Point, which sits on the waters of the Potomac directly across from National Airport, and its park and recreation spaces have a unique place in DC community culture. 

The golf and tennis facilities are distinctly public, and open to all, for very low fees. You see a wide range of people using them: Golfers and tennis enthusiasts, young families pushing strollers, runners and bikers and skaters taking the multi-mile course around the whole Hains Point peninsula, bird-watchers and nature-lovers and so on. Notably, they come from the full range of DC’s population. And this is what Trump now wants to bulldoze and turn into “One of the Best and Most Spectacular Golf Courses anywhere in the World,” as he put it this morning in a post. 

In that post, he explicitly called out the new course’s appeal to the PGA tour and as a venue for golf’s “major” events. Toward that end, he said that the current courses would be closed altogether starting next month. “Thank you for your attention to this matter,” he concluded. Grrrrr.

Bruce Baker’s evaluation of education policy in Florida demonstrates that the state operates on the crazy theory that cutting funding is good, diverting funding from district schools to charters and vouchers is good, and underpaying teachers makes them better.

All of this makes no sense.

Read his report.

Here are his conclusions:

Several themes emerge from the analyses presented in this report.

First, regarding long term trends in Florida school funding, adequacy and efficiency:

• Florida schools have been squeezed by declining state aid since the early 2000s as the state has pursued its race to the bottom on taxpayer financing of public elementary and secondary schools.

• That squeeze has resulted in declining competitiveness of teacher wages over time and even more so, declining staffing ratios in schools increasing the workload on those that remain.

• Adjusted for labor costs over time, school spending per pupil in Florida and in Miami-Dade specifically, is less than it was 30 years ago.

• Florida school districts have responded by producing achievement levels beyond expectations given the resources they’ve been provided. Florida school districts are efficient when compared to school districts nationally, accounting for differences in costs.

• Still, because of the long slow reduction in effort, spending, staffing ratios and competitive wages, student outcomes in Florida have continued to decline, dropping among states and dropping in recent, post-COVID years as other states and the nation, on average, have begun to rebound.

• As the state has reduced its share of funding for public schooling, local districts have been forced to make up the difference with increased property taxes, to mitigate further damage to student outcomes by slowing the declining of competitive wages for teachers.

Second, regarding providing equal educational opportunity to all children in Florida:

Financing Florida’s Schools

• The state school finance system provides no discernable support to schools serving students with greater educational needs, outside of additional support for children with disabilities.

• The state’s charter school sector exacerbates inequality across student populations by operating within low-income neighborhoods, but serving far fewer children from low-income families, fewer children who are English learners and fewer children with disabilities.

• The state’s charter school sector also yields poor educational outcomes on state assessments when compared to traditional district schools or district magnet schools serving similar populations within the same district.

Finally, regarding spending for the greatest return on investment:

• The state has currently budgeted $3.8 billion dollars to be spent on students attending private schools, approximately 70% of which will likely be spent on children from higher income families who had not previously attended public district schools. That 70% of $3.8 billion would likely yield far greater return on investment and greater public benefit, based on existing research, if invested in public district schools in high poverty settings.

These findings lead to a clear set of policy recommendations. As shown in this report, the state has the economic capacity to pursue these recommendations. Even at the state’s own prior (2000s) education effort, funding for public schools would be 28% higher than it is presently. Add to that, more efficient allocation of funds currently being diverted to the school voucher program, and much of the state’s public education adequacy gap could be eliminated. As such, we propose the following recommendations:

Recommendation #1 – Phase 1: Engage in the work of setting a manageable standard of “high quality” public schooling for Florida’s children by engaging in analyses of the costs associated with providing each and every child in Florida with equal educational opportunity to achieve high education outcomes.

d. Establish a statewide commission on school funding.

e. Engage stakeholders in setting standards of excellence for Florida children.

f. Engage experts to estimate the costs associated with meeting those standards, applying appropriately rigorous methods.

Recommendation #1 – Phase 2: Guided by those estimates, reform the school finance formula and increase state aid to schools so as to provide them with the necessary resources for all children to have equal educational opportunity to achieve high education outcomes. That is, meet the constitutional standard ratified by Florida voters in 1998 and 2002. This should include estimates of commensurate funding for charter schools, based on needs and costs.

b. Take eliminating or reducing property taxes off the table. The most effective form of property tax relief is increased state aid, as would occur under implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation 2 – Part 1: Impose a moratorium on charter school expansion, including the Schools of Hope Program. The existing charter school sector in Florida is compromising equity, eroding efficiency and producing poor educational outcomes for those it serves. New York’s Success Academies have no proven track record of serving children like those they’d be called upon to serve in Miami-Dade, having served very few English learners and underserving Latino communities in New York. Like Miami-Dade’s current charter sector, they have also underserved low-income populations and children with disabilities. Introduction of Success Academies in Miami-Dade will most likely exacerbate equity concerns that are already significant.

Recommendation 2 – Part 2: Establish new regulations for evaluating existing charter operators and vetting new charter operators to ensure improved equity in the distribution of students by their needs across schools. Adopt and enforce stricter regulations pertaining to student outcomes.

Recommendation 2 – Part 3: Adopt updated charter school legislation to ensure that charter schools are sufficiently “public,” required to operate as if “state actors,” protecting children’s constitutional rights and abiding by all relevant federal statutes.

Recommendation 3: Freeze expansion of the voucher program to free up state resources to support a fully funded, overhauled public school finance formula, to provide a uniform system of schools.