Archives for the month of: November, 2025

Kristen Buras lives in New Orleans and has written several notable books about the charter school takeover of the city’s schools. After two decades at Emory University and Georgia State University, she currently works in New Orleans as a scholar-activist. She is cofounder and director of the New Orleans-based Urban South Grassroots Research Collective, a coalition with Black educational and cultural groups that melds community-based research and organizing for racial justice. Buras has written multiple books on urban educational policy, including Charter Schools, Race, and Urban Space: Where the Market Meets Grassroots Resistance and What We Stand to Lose: Black Teachers, the Culture They Created, and the Closure of a New Orleans High School.

Her latest report appears here:

The Stories Behind the Statistics: Why a Report on ‘Large Achievement Gains’ in Charter Schools Harms New Orleans’ Black Students

Buras’ latest report exposes how “Large Achievement Gains” in New Orleans’ charter schools mask persistent inequities

The National Center for Charter School Accountability (CCSA), a project of NPE, has released a new independent report, The Stories Behind the Statistics: Why a Report on ‘Large Achievement Gains’ in Charter Schools Harms New Orleans’ Black Students, authored by noted scholar Dr. Kristen Buras. The report delivers a penetrating critique of the widely circulated “success narrative” surrounding the charter-school takeover of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. It challenges the Education Research Alliance for New Orleans (ERA)’s claims of significant achievement gains. It reveals how shifting metrics, questionable data, and students’ lived experiences paint a far more complex—and troubling—picture.

The Stories Behind Statistics raises substantial concerns about the foundations of ERA’s conclusions. First, it details how Louisiana officials repeatedly modified the school performance metrics in ways that boosted the apparent success of charter schools, creating an illusion of dramatic improvement. Second, it questions the reliability of the data ERA relied upon, noting allegations, lawsuits, and documented violations—including grade-fixing, financial mismanagement, and other irregularities—that have occurred across the New Orleans charter sector. Third, the report underscores the longstanding lack of meaningful oversight and accountability for charter schools, which further undermines confidence in the performance data.

Finally, the report scrutinizes ERA’s surveys on teaching quality and school climate, demonstrating that the experiences of Black students—when examined at the school level—are far more negative than ERA’s brief suggests. To bring these realities into focus, Dr. Buras incorporates original qualitative research, including firsthand testimony from students and parents describing their experiences in New Orleans charter schools.

The Stories Behind the Statistics urges policymakers, researchers, and the public to look beyond celebratory headlines and examine the deeper structural issues that continue to shape the city’s all-charter experiment—issues that profoundly affect the educational experiences of Black youth and their families.

According to Network for Public Education President Diane Ravitch, “As cities and states across the nation look to New Orleans as a model of charter-school reform, this report cautions how important it is to dig deeper than surface metrics. Without transparency, accountability, and attention to student experience, reforms that appear successful on paper may in fact perpetuate inequities and undermine educational justice for students.” 

Jonathan Larsen reported the details of the press conference held by Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani and President Trump after their private meeting. Everyone was expecting fireworks since the two had traded insults. But their friendly, even warm, exchange surprised everyone.

Maybe I’m fascinated in this meeting because I live in NYC, but mostly I’m fascinated for what this meeting shows about Mamdani and Trump.

Jonathan Larsen wrote on his Substack blog (whose name is unprintable on this blog):

It was built up as the next Rumble in the Jungle. The Ado on Pennsylvania Avenue, or something.
But CNN ended up calling it “bizarrely chummy.” Or, in British speak, “surprisingly cordial,” as the BBC put it.

It actually wasn’t bizarre. Professional journalists shouldn’t have been surprised and should be embarrassed to admit they were. After all, New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani asked for Friday’s meeting with Pres. Donald Trump.

Trump, obviously, agreed. Setting the meeting without being open to cordiality and chumminess is what would be bizarre and surprising. But even with that in mind, the extent of Trump’s cordial chumminess was, admittedly, remarkable.

Trump ended up beaming in pictures with Mamdani on the same day he gave Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) a kick in the ass as she headed out the door.

“It was a great honor meeting Zohran Mamdani, the new Mayor New York City!” Trump posted afterward, erasing still Mayor Eric Adams.

On point after point — communism, Israel, crime — Trump without a second thought brushed off right-wing and centrist-Democratic priorities and fear-mongering and even his past bellicosity.

Along the way, Trump explicitly tossed a Republican ally under the bus, essentially saying she’s lying about Mamdani because, hey, campaigning, amirite?

The meeting itself was peppered with more Trump positivity than any one media account conveyed, so I broke down all the Trump love for Mamdani into categories1:

Defending Mamdani

On Mamdani calling him a despot: “I’ve been called much worse than a despot, so it’s not, it’s not that insulting, but maybe — I think he’ll change his mind after we get to working together.” The whole exchange is worth watching:

[it appears on TikTok.]

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8Uj92YT/

•“That’s another thing I think we have in common, we want to see peace in the Middle East.”

•Trump: “You said a lot of my voters actually voted for him and—:
Mamdani: “One in ten.”
Trump: “—and I’m OK with that.”

•“He may have different views, but in many ways, you know, we were discussing when [Sen.] Bernie Sanders [I-VT] was out of the race. I picked up a lot of his votes and people had no idea because he was strong on not getting ripped off in trade. And lots of the things that I’ve practiced and been very successful on — tariffs, a lot of things — Bernie Sanders and I agreed on … But no, I feel very comfortable, I would be, I would feel very, very comfortable being in New York [under Mayor Mamdani] and I think much more so after the meeting.”

•“I think you’re going to have hopefully a really great mayor. The better he does, the happier I am.”

•“We had some interesting conversation and some of his ideas really are the same ideas that I have.”

•Q: “Would you feel comfortable living in New York City under a Mamdani administration?”

Trump: “Yeah, I would. I really would, especially after the meeting, absolutely. …We agree on a lot more than I would have thought.”

•“I think he’s different, all right? I think he’s different and that can be a very positive way. But I think he’s different than — you know, your typical guy; runs, wins, becomes mayor maybe and nothing exciting — because he [Mamdani] has a chance to really do something great for New York. New York is at a very critical point and he does need the help of the federal government to really succeed and we’re going to be helping him. But he’s different than, you know, your average candidate. He came out of nowhere. I said — he has a great campaign manager standing over there — he came out of, he came out of nowhere. What did you start off at, one or two? And then — I watched, I said, who is this guy? — he was at one, then he was at three, then he was at five, then he was at nine. Then he went up to 17. I said, that’s getting a little bit interesting, right? And then all of a sudden he wins the primary that nobody expected he was going to win. It’s a great, a great tribute. I mean, it’s an amazing thing that he did.”

That last one is where you can really see one of the pillars on which Trump’s obvious affection for Mamdani lies. He won. He beat the insiders, the ones who care about norms and tribal alliances.

It’s hard not to suspect that Trump’s affection for Mamdani was heightened by the fact that Mamdani beat disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) even after Cuomo’s last-minute endorsement from Trump himself.
Rejecting Media Bullshit

While Mamdani frequently ignored or instantly pivoted from questions premised on Let’s You and Him Fight, Trump, too, swatted away questions to avoid areas of conflict.
Look at the previous exchange about being a despot. Trump rescued Mamdani by stipulating that the media don’t get it.

Q: “Are you affirming that you think President Trump is a fascist?”
Mamdani: “I’ve spoken about—”
Trump: “That’s OK. You could just say yes.”
Mamdani: “OK.”
Trump: “It’s easier — it’s easier than explaining it. I don’t mind.”

Later, again, Trump refused to take the bait and handed off to Mamdani, who immediately ran with it, where he wanted to go. Amazingly, this question was about Trump’s opinion on Mamdani vowing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to face the international charges against him, something of huge importance to much of Trump’s base.

Since I’m tired of copying what Larsen wrote, I urge you to open the link.

The best part is that Larsen points out that Trump stabbed Elise Stefanik in the back. Stefanik is running for Governor against Kathy Hochul. Hochul endorsed Mamdani. Neither Chuck Schumer nor Hakeem Jeffries did, to avoid offending orthodox Jewish voters or the Wall Street crowd and powerful corporate interests.

Stefanik has been running TV ads based on terrifying voters about Mamdani, portraying him as a Muslim who will impose Sharia law and do all the horrible things to Jews and women that terrorists do.

But Trump really liked him! They have a bromance going.

Stefanik should join the Marjorie Taylor Greene club. Another MAGA woman tossed aside like a squeezed lemon.

We have seen many repulsive sights in the Oval Office since Trump was sworn in last January. The covering of the room in fake gold ornaments is an abomination. Trump’s rude treatment of Zelensky was an outrage.

But the top abomination, at this moment, was his loving embrace of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who should be reviled for his brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

What next? A Presidential Medal of Honor for Putin?

Trump has many personal commercial ties to Saudi Arabia. Cynically speaking, Trump is building alliances by making personal deals with potentates who increase his family wealth. Surely, we cannot forget that MBS arranged to give Son-in-law Jared Kushner $2 billion after Trump left office in 2021. Kushner had no experience in financial investing. His background was real estate. Now, Trump’s real estate buddies Steve Witkoff and Howard Lutnick, are Trump’s envoys to Russia, the Middle East, and other hotspots. They too (and their children) are taking in millions and billions, because they are in “the room where it happens.”

The New York Times wrote recently about how Lutnick’s sons are making lucrative deals , which are helped by the fact that their father is Secretary of Commerce. “But never in modern U.S. history has the office intersected so broadly and deeply with the financial interests of the commerce secretary’s own family, according to interviews with ethics lawyers and historians…”

The New York Times also chronicled the ways that billionaire Steve Witkoff’s sons are cashing in with investments in the Middle East and in cryptocurrency, building on their father’s connection to Trump.

This is not what the Founders intended.

But maybe those of us who worry about abstract ideas like ethics and laws are in the wrong. Maybe the best way to make a deal with the devil is to get in bed with him, speak his language, and buy his friendship. That’s Trump’s way. And nobody does it better.

Sabrina Haake writes:

Trump just threw a lavish state party to welcome a Saudi murderer. He defended the murderer’s crime, blamed the victim, and viciously attacked a reporter for asking the question on everyone’s mind: What about Jamal Khashoggi?

Of all the shameful metaphors for the corruption, ignorance, and rot presently infecting the White House, this one wears the Trump crown.

A brutal regime dismembers its critic

Jamal Khashoggi was a US resident and journalist for the Washington Post during its halcyon years, before it fell to corporate interests that now serve Trump.

Khashoggi was also a frequent critic of the Saudi government. He frequently criticized the royal ruling family, not for their lavish lifestyles, but for their suppression of dissent, their refusal to allow free speech among the Saudi people, and their widespread human rights abuses.

On Oct. 2, 2018, Khashoggi was murdered in Istanbul. He had gone to see about a visa for his Turkish fiancée at the Saudi consulate’s office, where he was attacked, stangled, and dismembered.

A recording made by Turkish intelligence agents in the building captured the whole gruesome ordeal: Khashoggi could be heard struggling against Saudi guards of the royal Crown Prince as his killing was recorded, complete with screams, the sounds of strangulation, then quiet, before a bone saw was heard dismembering his body.

US Intelligence knows bin Salman did it

In 2021, US intelligence reports concluded that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, aka “the Bone Saw Prince,” had personally ordered the operation.

The US Director of National Intelligence supplied reasons supporting that conclusion, including:

· bin Salman’s total control of decision-making in the Saudi Kingdom;

· The direct involvement of bin Salman’s key adviser in the brutal attack, along with members of his personal security team; and

· bin Salman’s stated support for using violence to silence critics of the Saudi government abroad, including Khashoggi.

US intelligence added that, “Since 2017, the Crown Prince has had absolute control of the Kingdom’s security and intelligence organizations, making it highly unlikely that Saudi officials would have carried out an operation of this nature without the Crown Prince’s authorization.”

Despite these publicly available facts, Trump treated bin Salman to an unusually lavish state reception, complete with military officers in full dress carrying both Saudi and American colors. As the US taxpayer-funded Marine band played, Trump and Mr. Bone Saw were treated to a fly-over of advanced fighter jets, samples of the 48 F-35 jets Trump already sold to Saudi Arabia, despite national security concerns that China would be able to steal the aircraft’s advanced technology.

Trump courts a murderer to line his own pockets

Trump’s personal wealth has increased by over $3 billion since his return to office, largely from ethics-adjacent crypto schemes, foreign real estate deals, meme coins that have no value, and overt pay to play transactions. His lavish courtship of bin Salman fits neatly into the same corrupt pattern, promoting Trump’s illegal,private, for-profit interests.

The Trump Organization now has multiple, large-scale projects pending in Saudi Arabia, including a new Trump Tower and a Trump Plaza development in the works in Jeddah, along with two other projects planned in Riyadh. These deals are publicly known; it’s likely billions more are exchanging hands under the table.

Trump is also in private partnership with the Saudi-owned, “International Luxury Real Estate Developer,” Dar Global. There’s also a separate $2 billion deal where an Abu Dhabi-based, UAE-backed investment firm used a cryptocurrency from the Trump family’s venture, World Liberty Financial, to invest in another crypto exchange, profiting Trump royally.

And no one has forgotten Trump’s son in law, Jared Kushner’s, $2 billion private “investment” fee from the Saudis, packaged when Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) announced a $55 billion acquisition. Kushner’s fee is widely regarded as payment for providing political cover and guaranteeing Trump’s regulatory protection. After the PIF’s own advisors initially rejected the deal, bin Salman personally overruled them and pushed it through.

Trump didn’t mention these deals this week when he rolled out the red carpet on taxpayers’ dime, but claimed instead with trademark ambiguity that the Saudis were going to “invest as much as $1 trillion in the US.”

Trump endorses the unthinkable

Journalists around the world, not to mention Khashoggi’s family, had to endure the nightmare of watching Trump fawn all over bin Salman. In every photo from the mainstream media, Trump couldn’t keep his hands off him, as if Trump were absorbing Saudi wealth through his fingers.

Tuesday, when journalist Mary Bruce asked bin Salman about intelligence reports concluding that he ordered the Khashoggi murder, Trump jumped in, answering for him. “He knew nothing about it! You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking something like that.”

Trump then suggested Khashoggi got what he had coming for criticizing the government, saying, “A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman (Khashoggi) that you’re talking about, whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen.”

After sending this chilling message to his critics, Trump then attacked Bruce for asking a “horrible,” insubordinate,” and “just a terrible question,” dressing her down in garbled syntax before cameras of the world with, “You’re all psyched up. Somebody psyched you over at ABC and they’re going to psych it. You’re a terrible person and a terrible reporter,” and later demanded that ABC lose its broadcast license.

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is condemned throughout the civilized world as a brutal 5th Century pariah. Trump just spent a taxpayer fortune to rebrand him “one of the most respected people in the world” to elevate and promote Trump’s own private business ventures.

It is fitting that Trump committed this atrocity in a formerly dignified room recently desecrated with tacky gold medallions. The Oval Office is now a bordello whose pimp is selling America to the highest bidder, and we, his trafficked victims, are letting him do it.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

Watching the press conference that followed NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s meeting with Trump felt like stepping into an alternate universe.

Before they met, Mamdani called Trump names and promised to “Trumpproof” the city. Trump called Mamdani a “radical lunatic,” “a communist,” and lots of ethnic and religious slurs. He also threatened to cut off federal aid to the city.

But after they met, Mamdani was beaming and Trump was gushing with praise for the vibrant young Mayor-elect. He even gave Mamdani that special smile that he usually reserves for Putin.

As a resident of NYC, I’m very happy with the outcome but puzzled. I haven’t met Mamdani but he clearly has magic powers.

Dean Obeidallah, who is Muslim, explains what happened on his blog:

For those shocked by how smitten Donald Trump was with Zohran Mamdani during their Oval Office meeting on Friday, it’s simply because you don’t know about the special powers, we, Muslims have. One of them is the ability to mesmerize people. Now, we only use this super Muslim power in special moments. We just can’t go around captivating people all day because we would have too many people chasing us around like smitten puppy dogs.

How does this spell get cast? Some online have speculated that Zohran called Trump “Habibi.” I can neither confirm nor deny that the word “Habibi” –or “Habibiti” for a woman—is part of how we do this.

But the trance I saw Trump in means Zohran likely dropped a special potion of Middle Eastern spices into Trump’s Diet Coke or McDonald’s cheeseburger. While I’m sworn to secrecy on the full list of ingredients, it likely involves sumac, cumin, cardamom with a hint of Trump’s favorite Doritos nacho cheese flavor. How powerful is it? Just look at the photo below. We all want someone to look at us with that type of affection!

Now with the kidding aside-or could it there really be a Muslim superpower?! I get why people would be stunned by what transpired. Trump had slammed Zohran days before the meeting as a “communist.” And during the mayoral campaign, Trump had attacked Zohran on everything from his looks —“TERRIBLE”—to his voice—“grating”—and even threatened to look into stripping him of citizenship and arresting him.

And Zohran in return had repeatedly trashed Trump calling him everything from “corrupt” to a “fascist” to a “despot.” He even mocked Trump during his victory speech a few weeks ago taking a shot at him being nearly 80 years old with the comment “I know you’re watching, I have four words for you: Turn the volume up.”

That was all gone yesterday—at least from Trump’s point of view. There was Trump pushing back on reporters that are from pro-Trump media outlets saying at one point, “I’ll stick up for you.” Trump added later he would live in New York under Mayor Mamdani and even said he was “confident that he [Zohran] can do a very good job”.

Now if you watch the clips– such as the one below– as Trump is defending Zohran and looking at him with puppy dog eyes, Zohran is simply being Zohran. He’s professional, poised and like always focused on his message of affordability for New Yorkers.

Trump ❤️ Mamdani

People can debate why Trump was glowing. I’ve met Zohran and chatted with him here in NYC over the past few years. He’s exceedingly smart—plus he does his homework on issues, etc. That means Zohran knew exactly what to say to Trump to elicit this response—and executed it perfectly.

In addition, Trump is at his lowest point in the polls in the second term. Trump is especially underwater on the economy with a Fox News poll this week finding that 76 percent now rate the U.S. economy negatively under Trump.

Trump needs to be near a winner—and that is what Zohran is. But while this meeting was both entertaining and inspiring, the best part was what happened immediately after it ended. And that was the outrage from the anti-Muslim bigots who to put it bluntly: Lost their sh*t.

For starters, there was GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik who is running for New York governor in 2026. Her campaign has been focused on smearing Zohran and all Muslims. She’s like a female George Wallace but instead of demonizing Blacks–she is hating on Muslims. 

Her main line of attack is to call Zohran a “jihadist.” Well in the Oval Office meeting, Trump was asked if he agreed that Zohran was a jihadist? In response Trump said no, adding, “I just met with a man who’s a very rational person.”

In response, Stefanik became hysterical because this undermines her campaign based on hate. She quickly vented her anger online repeating Zohran is a jihadist. Her freak out was a joy to behold.

Then there were bigots like Laura Loomer—who increasingly looks a cautionary tale for Botox abuse. After Zohran won, she posted a series of anti-Muslim comments such as calling Zohran a “jihadi” and writing “Mamdani will encourage Muslims to commit political assassinations to acquire power and silence critics.”

Yesterday, she was outraged with the Zohran-Trump love fest. She went on a long Twitter rantslamming the meeting and that Republicans need to oppose his agenda or lose. But deep down with Loomer it’s always about anti-Muslim hate.

Others like WABC radio’s Sid Rosenberg—who inadvertently helped Zohran win with his anti-Muslim comments that Andrew Cuomo joined in during the campaign—loves Trump. But he was fully triggered by this meeting. He told the NY Times “to watch them shake hands and smile” made him want to lose his lunch.

Of course there were countless other MAGA loving, Muslim hating scumbags on social media who went ballistic over the meeting. They live to be outraged.

Only time will tell if this meeting helps the people of New York City, Trump’s sagging approval numbers, etc. But one thing we knew it did already was piss off the anti-Muslim haters. If enjoying that is wrong, I don’t want to be right!

Jan Resseger is a determined and purposeful writer.

On Tuesday, Part 1 of this post explored the Trump Administration’s seizure of the Congressional “power of the purse” as part of a strategy to accomplish the President’s goal of shutting down the U.S. Department of Education by firing hundreds of the Department’s staff who administer and oversee enormous grant programs like Title I and special education programs funded by the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, along with many other essential programs that protect students’ rights and fulfill the Department’s mission of ensuring that children across all the states can equitably have a quality public school education. Part 1 also examined how the U.S. Supreme Court has shunted many of the legal challenges filed against Trump administration onto a “shadow docket” of temporary decisions with a long wait for a hearing on their merits and a final ruling by the Supreme Court on their legality.

Today, Part 2 will examine three primary examples of what appear to be the Trump administration’s shameless violation of the core Constitutional principles we have long valued for protecting the rights of children and their teachers in our nation’s system of K-12 public schools.

The First Amendment Protection of Freedom of Speech — Beginning in February and continuing through the year, the Trump administration has been pressuring colleges and universities and K-12 public schools to adopt its own interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the administration’s idiosyncratic interpretation of a 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. While most experts believe that Students for Fair Admissions was a narrowly tailored decision to eliminate affirmative in college admissions, the Trump administration has alleged it also bans all “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programming and policy in K-12 public schools and in higher education.

In August, the NY Times Dana Goldstein ideology the Trump administration has been trying to impose on educational institutions and teachers: “While there is no single definition of D.E.I., the Trump administration has indicated that it considers many common K-12 racial equity efforts to fall under the category and to be illegal. Those include directing tutoring toward struggling students of specific races, such as Black boys; teaching lessons on concepts such as white privilege; and trying to recruit a more racially diverse set of teachers. The administration has also warned colleges that they may not establish scholarship programs or prizes that are intended for students of specific races, or require students to participate in ‘racially charged’ orientation programs… The administration has also argued that because the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in college admissions in 2023, all racially conscious education programs are illegal.”

Can the Trump administration impose its ideology on educational institutions and get teachers punished or fired if they cover unpleasant parts of our nation’s history? Many experts call this a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. To define how the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech in educational institutions, Yale Law School professor Justin Driver quotes the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in the 1943 Supreme Court decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or any other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” (Justin Driver, The Schoolhouse Gate, pp. 65-66)

The Vagueness Doctrine — In addition to the violation of the right to freedom of speech, there is another serious legal problem in the Trump administration’s efforts to scrub “diversity, equity, and inclusion” from K-12 public schools and from the policies of the nation’s universities.  Writing for the NY TimesMatthew Purdy explored how the Trump administration’s vague rules, mandates and executive orders are designed to frighten people into complying:

“Federal District Court judges across the country and across the political spectrum…  (have faulted) the administration for using broadly cast executive orders and policies to justify ‘arbitrary and capricious’ actions. Many of these judges have explicitly invoked something called the vagueness doctrine, a concept that for centuries has been foundational to American law. The notion is simple: Unless laws are clearly stated, citizens cannot know precisely what is and is not permitted, handing authorities the power to arbitrarily decide who is in violation of a law or rule. Vagueness has long been seen as a clear divide between democracies run by laws and autocracies run by strongmen….”

The Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute explains how the vagueness doctrine protects due process of law: “Vagueness doctrine rests on the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court stated in Winters v New York, that U.S. citizens should not have to speculate the meaning of a law due to its vagueness, the law should be clear on its face.”

Purdy adds that many of Trump’s educational executive orders and the rules being imposed by Linda McMahon’s Department of Education ought to be declared void for vagueness. Without being sure  precisely what steps are required, universities have settled with the administration by making financial deals to protect their research funding; public school administrators have changed bathroom policies for trans students; and teachers have felt afraid to teach honestly about our nation’s history.  Purdy describes “Valerie Wolfson, the 2024 New Hampshire history teacher of the year… whose post-Civil War curriculum includes Reconstruction, the rise of the K.K.K. and the Jim Crow era. ‘I do not know how I could discuss them without creating a risk of being accused of presenting a narrative of the United States as racist,’ she says… None of Donald Trump’s edicts have deployed vagueness as effectively as his attack on D.E.I. …   The line between what is and isn’t allowed may be vague, but the penalty for crossing it is certain. The version cooked up by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is a textbook case…  The message—and the threat—from the Department of Education was received loud and clear across the country.” (This blog covered Purdy’s article in more detail.)

Birthright Citizenship — One of President Trump’s executive orders stands out in its utter contradiction of the language of the Fourteenth Amendment. In an executive order last January, the President ended birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship does not, thank goodness, deny any child’s right to public education because a 1982 Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe does protect the right for every child residing in the United States to a free public education.  However without the protection of birthright citizenship, children in this country are denied the protection of virtually all other rights.

In February a Federal District Court judge temporarily stayed Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship; the case was appealed; and later on June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court released a final decision. However the Supreme Court Justices twisted the meaning of the case without addressing the core issue of birthright citizenship itself. Instead the justices turned the decision into a ruling on procedure—declaring that local Federal District Courts cannot block the imposition of federal policy nationwide.

For Scotus Blog, Amy Howe explains how today’s Supreme Court abrogated its responsibility by ignoring the core issue in the birthright citizenship case: “(O)n July 23, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (had) ruled that the executive order ‘is invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘.”

Responding to the decision of the appeals court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer failed to ask the justices to fast-track its petition, urging the Supreme Court to review the ruling. Howe adds: “Although Sauer had the option to ask the court to fast-track its petition, he chose not to.  Accordingly, if the justices decide to take the case… it will likely schedule oral arguments for sometime in 2026 and reach a decision at the end of the… term—most likely in late June or early July.”

All three of these serious Constitutional principles remain at issue today in Trump’s attempt to deny the rights of educators and undermine the protection of students’ rights.

Disciplining ourselves to name and and understand what appear to be troubling legal violations by the Trump  administration is an important step toward building the political will for reform.

Jan Resseger writes here about the Trump administration’s open flouting of the law to achieve the goals outlined in Project 2025. What would be considered outrageous and illegal has been normalized since Trump took office in January. This second of his presidency is not merely a continuation of the first term. It’s the culmination of four years of planning by far-right ideologues to redesign the federal government in radical ways, mainly to take from the poor and give to the super-rich. They want to shrink the responsibility of the federal government, back to what they were a century ago.

Resseger focuses on the effects of Trump’s actions on public schools and vulnerable children. This post is the first of two.

She writes:

Despite that the federal government shutdown has ended, SNAP funds are being distributed, and airplanes are returning to their expected schedules, many of us are feeling disoriented and troubled by the way the federal government seems to be operating under Donald Trump’s leadership. We have been observing the Trump administration violating core principles we learned in civics class are at the heart of our democratic society. And we thought the Constitution was supposed to protect every one of us. In today’s post, I’ll try to name and explore some of the principles that President Trump seems to be violating as he attempts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. On Thursday, in Part 2, I’ll explore three serious constitutional violations. All of this is undermining the well-being of our nation’s massive institution of K-12 public schools, the leaders of 13,000 public school districts, over three million public school teachers, and more than 50 million students enrolled.

NY Times economic reporter Tony Romm reflects on the deeper meaning of the recent federal government shutdown: “(T)he president has frequently bent the rules of (the) budget, primarily to reap political benefits or exact retribution. He has found new and untested ways to spare certain Americans, like the military, from the pain of the government closure, while claiming he has no power to help others, including low-income individuals who rely on benefits like SNAP. The result is a shutdown unlike any other, one that has posed disparate and debilitating risks for those unlucky enough to depend on the many functions of government that Mr. Trump has long aspired to cut… At the heart of Mr. Trump’s actions is a belief that the president possesses vast power over the nation’s spending, even though the Constitution vests that authority with Congress. Mr. Trump and his budget director, Russell T. Vought have dismantled entire agencies, fired thousands of workers and canceled or halted billions of dollars in federal spending—all without the express permission of lawmakers.” Romm is not writing about public education, but you will recognize that his concerns apply to public schools and all the rest of our society’s primary institutions.

Trump Seizes the Power of the Purse

The NY Times Editorial Board enumerates three ways the President has grabbed power from Congress  by violating “the power of the purse” granted to Congress in the Constitution: “First, he has refused to spend money that Congress allocated… Second, Mr. Trump has spent money that Congress has not allocated… Third, the president has taken steps that effectively overturn Congress’s spending decisions. In these cases, he has not added or subtracted federal funds, but he has taken other steps that make it so an agency cannot carry out the mission that Congress envisioned for it.”

All year, and at a new and radical level during the recent federal shutdown, President Trump has ordered Education Secretary Linda McMahon and his other appointees in the Department of Education to usurp the power of the purse primarily by slashing the expenditure of Congressionally appropriated funds to staff the department, along with announcing the goal of eliminating the department and its federal role altogether.  The administration’s imposition of permanent layoffs during the federal shutdown focused on firing the professionals responsible for carrying out the very reason a U.S. Department of Education was established back in the fall of 1979, during President Jimmy Carter’s administration: to gather together and administer programs that equalize opportunity for students across the states, where there had historically been unequal protection of students’ rights depending on children’s family income, race, primary language, immigrant status, sexuality or disability.  Huge grant programs like Title I and IDEA and myriad smaller programs ensure that public schools, no matter where a student lives, meet the specific learning needs of all students including those whose primary language is not English and students with disabilities.

During the shutdown, the Trump administration appeared intent on violating the power of the purse at the U.S. Department of Education by radically reducing the staff who do the work—impounding funds congressionally appropriated for paying the staff who enable the Department of Education to fulfill its primary mission.  For example, Education Week‘s Brooke Schultz examines the implication of the shutdown staff cuts for the Office for Civil Rights, on top of massive staff cuts last spring: “Though the latest layoffs are on hold, an enforcement staff that had 560 members spread across 12 offices… will shrink by more than 70% if they go through… Experts worry that without federal enforcement, a fractured interpretation of civil rights laws and protections could take shape across the country—leading to conflicting and politicized handling of cases depending on where students live and what laws are on the books. They worry students in one state might not have the same protections at school as students in another… (S)ome state lawmakers are worried about civil rights complaints not being handled at all.”

During the shutdown, the Trump’s administration also eliminated most of the remaining staff in the Office for Elementary and Secondary Education who administer the huge and essential Title I grants for school districts serving concentrations of students living in poverty. Trump and McMahon also reduced staff in the Office of Special Education Programs, which oversees IDEA grants, from around 200 to five.  Everyone has understood those proposed shutdown layoffs as the Trump administration’s threat to move special education programming from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services, despite that the mission of that department emphasizes treatment instead of education. During the shutdown, Federal District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, Susan Illston temporarily blocked the proposed permanent staff layoffs and their implications for undermining the mission of the U.S. Department of Education, though, of course her pause on the staff firings had no effect while the shutdown continued.

The end of the shutdown did temporarily end all the shutdown layoffs. We shall have to wait a couple of months to see what happens. K-12 Dive‘Kara Arundel explains: “The continuing resolution signed into law Wednesday funds federal education programs at fiscal year 2025 levels. This temporary spending plan expires Jan. 30, unless Congress agrees to a more permanent budget before that deadline.  The deal nullifies the reduction-in-force notices sent to 465 agency employees on Oct. 10. The Education Department is also prohibited from issuing additional RIFs through the end of January and must provide back pay to all employees who did not receive compensation during the shutdown.” Clearly Trump and Vought’s power grab to eliminate much of the staff in a department established and funded by Congress has been blocked only temporarily.

Education Week‘s Mark Lieberman adds that prior to the shutdown, “The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan federal watchdog funded by Congress, had been investigating more than 40 instances of the Trump administration potentially violating the Nixon-era federal law that prohibits the executive branch from impounding… funds appropriated by Congress… The GAO had already published decisions before Oct. 1 finding that the administration broke the law by withholding funding from programs supporting school infrastructure upgrades, library and museum services, Head Start, and disaster preparation.”

Supreme Court Gives Trump Power through the Shadow Docket

We have also watched all year as Federal District Court judges have temporarily blocked Trump’s executive orders, but lacked the power to declare them permanently unconstitutional or in violation of federal law. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can do that. These cases then become part of “the shadow docket”— cases decided temporarily on an emergency basis but awaiting a full hearing and final decision. The number of these cases derailed to “the shadow docket” has grown rapidly in this first year of Trump’s second term.

In March, the Department of Education fired nearly 2,200 of its 4,133 staff.  After a Federal District Court judge blocked the layoffs temporarily, the case was subsequently appealed. On July 15, Diane Ravitch reported in her blog: “Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the President could continue to lay off the employees of the Department of Education while leaving aside the legal question of his power to destroy a Department created by Congress 45 years ago… If the Supreme Court ever gets around to deciding whether Trump has the legal authority to abolish the Department of Education, it will already be gone.”

After a Federal District Court case is appealed, the Supreme Court releases a temporary, emergency decision, putting off a formal hearing, oral arguments, and what the NY Times Adam Liptak calls, “an explanation of the court’s rationale” until some future time when the case could be scheduled for hearings on what Liptak calls the Supreme Court’s “merits docket.” Liptak explains: “The question of whether the nation’s highest court owes the public an explanation for its actions has grown along with the rise of the ’emergency docket,’ which uses truncated procedures to produce terse, provisional orders meant to remain in effect only while the courts consider the lawfulness of the challenged actions. In practice, the orders often effectively resolve the case.” His implication here is what Diane Ravitch worries about. By the time the Supreme Court fully considers and decides the case, perhaps years from now, it may be too late.

The shutdown has ended, but it is not clear what will happen to the U.S. Department of Education and the many federal programs that support public school equity across our nation.  Part 2 of this post on Thursday will explore what appear to be serious constitutional violations as they impact children and public schools.

Josh Cowen interviewed me by email about my life, after reading my book An Education: How I Changed My Mind About Schools and Almost Everything Else.

I think you will enjoy reading the interview.

He asks important questions about me and changes in my life.

The New York Times reported that the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has changed to reflect the extremist views of The Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The takeover of the nation’s premier public health agency will encourage some parents to avoid life-saving vaccines. Children will die.

The story says:

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website that previously said that vaccines do not cause autism walked back that statement, contradicting the agency’s previous efforts to fight misinformation about a connection between the two.

The agency’s webpage on vaccines and autism, updated on Wednesday, now repeats the skepticism that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has voiced about the safety of vaccines, though dozens of scientific studies have failed to find evidence of a link.

A previous version of the webpage said that studies had shown “no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder.” It cited a 2012 National Academy of Medicine review of scientific papers and a C.D.C. study from 2013.

On Thursday, the live version of the page stated: “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.”

Olga Lautman is the go-to source on Russia and Ukraine. A Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, she writes about foreign policy in Eastern Europe and organized crime networks in Russia. She writes here about the “peace plan” that Trump has worked out with Putin. The Trump administration’s fealty to Putin puts us on the sidelines–or worse, as facilitators– as Putin rains death on Ukrainian homes, schools, and civilian populations every night.

Lautman writes:

Today was another sickening day — as Russia carried out one of its more deadly terrorist attacks across Ukraine while Putin’s puppets, Trump and Steve Witkoff, continue preparing yet another Kremlin attempt to force Ukraine into surrender. Russia launched 476 drones and 48 missiles in coordinated strikes that killed 26 civilians — including three children — wounded 141 more, and leveled residential buildings in the Ukrainian city of Ternopil, tearing families apart as they slept. It is part of Russia’s deliberate, systematic effort to ensure that no Ukrainian, not even a sleeping child, is safe anywhere in their homeland. The attack violated NATO airspace, forced Poland and Romania to scramble fighter jets and activate their highest air-defense posture, and exposed once again that Russia continues to escalate because it knows the West, paralyzed by caution and U.S. political dysfunction, will do absolutely nothing to stop it.

And as Ukrainians were still digging survivors out from under rubble, Trump’s hand-picked “envoy,” real estate developer Steve Witkoff, managed to accidentally reveal the Russian source behind an Axios article by posting on X what he believed was a private DM: “He must have got this from K.” “K” is Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s money man, messenger, and the sanctioned operative who, according to Axios, spent three days in Miami, last month, drafting a secret Ukraine plan with Witkoff and other Trump loyalists. 

A grab showing Witkoff's now-deleted reply to Ravid.

Witkoff’s blunder confirmed that Trump’s so-called plan is effectively being drafted by the Kremlin and exposed, yet again, that Trump is preparing to force Ukraine into territorial concessions Russia has repeatedly failed to seize on the battlefield — marking the fourth or fifth time he has attempted to coerce Kyiv into capitulation. Witkoff’s incompetence is also not new, as this is the same man who was swept up in the “Signal-gate” scandal while at a meeting with Putin in Russia, and who relied on a Russian intelligence operative as his translator under the belief that the U.S. Embassy had sent her. 

Everything about Trump and Witkoff’s behavior makes it unmistakably clear that they are operating to advance Russian interests, driven by the lure of financial deals, Kremlin-approved business ventures, and future profit streams almost certainly dangling behind their relentless enthusiasm to give Moscow exactly what it wants.

According to Axios, the 28-point framework is built entirely around Russian demands, security concerns, and territorial ambitions — a document so skewed toward Moscow’s interests that Kirill Dmitriev bragged that “the Russian position is really being heard,” which, of course, it is, because they wrote the plan. 

The absurd proposal uses polite, diplomatic language like “security guarantees” and “security in Europe,” yet behind those sanitized phrases, it would force the international community to illegally recognize Crimea and Donbas as “lawful” Russian territory, while compelling Ukraine to cut the size of its armed forces and surrender parts of its weapon stockpiles. It is a plan that ignores Russia’s ongoing genocide, its mass kidnapping of more than 21,000 Ukrainian children, its deportations, torture chambers, filtration camps, and its daily missile and drone attacks on civilian homes and infrastructure. The entire scheme is explicitly designed to pressure Ukraine into legitimizing Russian territorial theft and genocide. And despite this glaring reality, Trump views this Kremlin-drafted blueprint as if it were a serious initiative to end Russia’s aggressions, when in truth it is exactly what it is: a surrender written to the Kremlin’s specifications and carried forward by a U.S. regime eager to act as the Kremlin’s delivery service.

Then came another revelation when a senior White House official told reporters a deal could come “as soon as this week,” and when asked about Europe’s stance, responded: “We don’t really care about the Europeans.” 

Meanwhile, as Ukraine continues to be under Russia’s daily genocidal assault, the Trump regime decided to welcome clergy and lobbyists tied to the Russian Orthodox Church — an arm of Russia’s intelligence. These individuals are being given White House access to promote Russia’s long-running anti-Ukrainian propaganda campaign that Ukraine “persecutes Orthodox Christians,” a narrative manufactured by Russia as it bombs churches across Ukraine. 

And what’s missing from these discussions is Russia’s most monstrous crimes: the systematic abduction of more than 21,000 Ukrainian children — torn from their homes, transported into Russia, stripped of their names, identities, language, and, in many cases, their families — then thrown into indoctrination camps built to sever every tie to Ukraine and reprogram them as Russians. Investigations show that many of these children are also being funneled into military training programs, meaning Russia is not simply kidnapping them but preparing the oldest to eventually fight against their own country. 

While all these atrocities are taking place openly in the eyes of the world, much of the American media is covering the entire sequence of events like a show — as if the Kremlin shaping U.S. foreign policy, a Trump envoy assisting the Kremlin to write a surrender plan, and Russian Orthodox influence agents receiving White House access are simply another batch of political “scoops” rather than evidence of a national-security crisis with life and death implications. Headlines focused on Witkoff’s DM “fail,” the intrigue around a “secret plan,” and the gossip-worthy drama of politics — trivializing a moment when Russia continues slaughtering civilians and Trump is attempting to reward Kremlin genocide and cede sovereign territory that doesn’t even belong to the U.S.

Europe, meanwhile, is staring directly into the abyss as it allows Russian missiles to cut across its airspace on their way to killing Ukrainians instead of shooting them down. During yesterday’s attack, Romania confirmed that a Russian drone penetrated five miles into its territory. Poland is already bracing for more strikes near its borders, and NATO fighter jets scrambled multiple times throughout the night as Russian missiles and drones approached alliance airspace.

And this is happening as Russia escalates its warfare against NATO countries, with saboteurs attempting to blow up a train on a Polish railway line essential for delivering military aid to Ukraine, escalating incursions in Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and beyond, repeated airspace breaches, surveillance flights, and a growing series of attempts to destabilize European infrastructure — all of it underscoring that Moscow feels emboldened, unchallenged, and increasingly willing to test how far it can push.

As reprehensible as Trump’s latest attempt to force Ukraine into surrender may be, he cannot make it happen. Ukraine will never cede its land to terrorists, and Ukrainians will continue defending the country — with or without the United States. What is happening, however, is that America is sliding into complicity in Russia’s genocide and betraying European security. Despite all of this, one truth remains: Ukraine will never surrender.

Thom Hartmann writes that the Jeffrey Epstein case illuminates an age-old belief that white men are entitled to dominate everyone else. We see this ideology in the inhumane treatment of Native Americans; in the horrors of male control of women.

He writes:

The Jeffrey Epstein scandal stripped away the polite fiction that wealthy white men in America are held to the same standards as everyone else. 

Epstein wasn’t an exception. He was the rule, laid bare. 

From the first days of European settlement, powerful white men have moved through this country with a kind of immunity that would be unthinkable for anyone else. That isn’t just a cultural habit: it’s the residue of the original architecture of America. 

We built a nation on the belief that white men were entitled to rule, entitled to take, entitled to decide whose lives mattered and whose didn’t. 

That belief never died. It adapted. It modernized. And today it animates a political movement that has captured one of our two major parties.

The root of the problem goes all the way back to the Doctrine of Discovery. A European/papal decree announcing that white nations had a God-given right to seize any land they encountered became the legal and moral starting point for American expansion. 

The Supreme Court wrote it into our jurisprudence in the nineteenth century, and we never really let it go. From that twisted foundation flowed the taking of Native land, the destruction of Native nations, and the belief that whiteness itself conferred ownership. 

And then — as I point out in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy — that logic didn’t stay confined to the frontier. It seeped into every corner of American life and rose up to try to destroy even the idea of a pluralistic democracy in this country.

Slavery was built on the same logic. It wasn’t an ugly exception to American values; it was a central expression of them. The economy depended on it. Congress bent itself into knots to protect it. The Constitution accommodated it. 

When the Civil War ended, our country had a chance to uproot the white male supremacist ideology that had allowed human beings to be treated as property. Instead, we dodged it. 

I still remember well, when our son was nine years old and we lived in suburban Atlanta, asking him over dinner, “What did you learn in school today?” and his answer was, “We studied the ‘War of Northern Aggression.’”

We allowed the old Confederates back into the halls of power in the 1870s. We let them write the history books. We abandoned the freedmen who had been promised protection and citizenship. 

And the system that emerged was simply white male supremacy, the foundation of slavery, by another name.

Jim Crow wasn’t a detour; it was the natural continuation of the racial hierarchy this country was built on and today’s GOP — and ICE, CPB, and Trump’s toadies in DHS — are trying to re-solidify for the 21st century.

Every tool was used to maintain it. Poll taxes. Literacy tests. Lynching. Chain gangs. Sharecropping. Segregated schools. Redlining. Policing practices that looked far more like occupation than law enforcement. 

All of it justified by the same foundational lie that today animates the brutality of Trump‘s ICE raids: that white people were meant to rule and everyone else existed by their pleasure. And the Big Lie that brown-skinned immigrants are committing “voter fraud” that justifies purging millions from our voting rolls every year. 

That lie still echoes in our institutions. It’s why entire communities — and now polling places — are policed like enemy territory. It’s why Republicans on the courts (particularly SCOTUS) have so often sided with the powerful over the vulnerable. And it’s why we’ve seen, in recent years, an explicitly brutal willingness to use federal force against Americans exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and protest. 

When Trump sent federal agents and troops into Los Angeles, DC, Chicago, Portland, Memphis, and threatened to deploy them elsewhere, it wasn’t a new idea. It was an old ideology flexing its muscles again. It treats American citizens as though they’re foreign enemies. It uses military-trained forces not for defense but for control.

James Madison warned us precisely about this danger of the military policing civilians:

“The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” 

He couldn’t have been clearer. The Founders feared the domestic use of military force not because they were naïve, but because they knew exactly how easily power could be turned inward. They knew that once a government starts treating its own people as threats, libertybecomes the first casualty because they’d seen it done by the British in their own time.

The chilling truth is that the movement dominating the modern GOP has embraced that very mentality. 

It draws its energy from white grievance and Christian nationalism. It relies on the belief that democracy is legitimate only when it protects white cultural dominance (which is why the Trump Department of Labor is exclusively posting pictures of white workers as if they’re the only “real” Americans). 

It thrives on fear and resentment, and encourages a view of fellow nonwhite and female Americans as enemies to be controlled rather than citizens to be represented. 

Today’s GOP and the rightwing-billionaire-funded, 50-year-long “Conservative Movement” that drives it have embraced every bad instinct of the Confederacy, the frontier, Jim Crow, and the backlash to the Civil Rights Movement. 

They’re not “conserving” anything. They’re restoring an old order.

This didn’t happen suddenly. It took decades and the investment of billions of dollars. 

People of a certain age (like me) well remember William F. Buckley Jr.’s 1966-1999 show Firing Line every Sunday on PBS as he pontificated about the wonders of “conservatism” and promoted Republican politicians. My dad was a religious viewer and we watched it together every weekend; the show was a major force in national politics.

In a 1957 editorial titled Why the South Must Prevail, Buckley laid out explicitly what the foundation of conservatism must be.

“Again, let us speak frankly,” Buckley wrote: “The South does not want to deprive the Negro of a vote for the sake of depriving him of the vote. … In some parts of the South, the White community merely intends to prevail — that is all. It means to prevail on any issue on which there is corporate disagreement between Negro and White. The White community will take whatever measures are necessary to make certain that it has its way.”

He asked, rhetorically, if white people in the South are “entitled” to “prevail” over nonwhites even in rural areas of the country or large cities with majority Black populations.

“The sobering answer,” Buckley wrote, “is Yes— the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”

Arguably, following up in April of 2021 the National Review published an article headlined: Why Not Fewer Voters? justifying Republican voter suppression.

Nixon welcomed the old segregationist Democrats into the GOP. Reagan polished the rhetoric and wrapped it in patriotic language. The Republican Party spent years perfecting techniques to suppress votes, gerrymander districts, and reshape the judiciary. 

By the time Trump arrived, the Party was ready for someone who would drop the coded language and say the quiet part out loud.

Trump told white male voters they were the only “real Americans” and everyone else was suspect. He told them the military and the police existed to protect them from demographic change. He told them the only valid elections were the ones they won.

The good news is that most Americans reject this. 

Most Americans believe in a multiracial democracy. They want equal justice. They want freedom that applies to everyone. They don’t want their own government treating nonwhites or women as enemy combatants. They don’t want Epstein-style impunity for morbidly rich white men. They don’t want leaders who behave as if the military is a toy for intimidating political opponents.

But we can’t defeat what we refuse to name. America’s original sin wasn’t just slavery or colonialism: it was the belief that white men are entitled to rule by default and women and nonwhites must be subordinate to them. 

That belief still infects our politics and largely controls the GOP. It still shapes our institutions. It still animates Republican justices on the Supreme Court who see equality as a threat and democracy as negotiable.

We can’t move forward until we reckon with that truth about our nation’s history and today’s GOP. 

We can’t protect liberty while ignoring the warnings of the people who built this country. 

And we can’t defend American democracy — and democracy around the world — while the GOP wages war against the very idea of a nation where everyone counts.

The reckoning is long overdue. This time we have to finish the job.

Double-check your voter registration and pass along the good word to everybody you know.