Archives for the month of: November, 2025

Karen Attiah was the editor at The Washington Post for Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi. She recently left the Post, objecting to its obeisance to Trump.

Trump’s warm welcome for Saudi Arabia’s leader, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, outraged her, as it outraged everyone who remembered what happened to Khashoggi.

Khashoggi was a journalist, author, and dissident in Saudi Arabia. He fled Saudi Arabia in September 2017 and settled in the U.S. He was hired by Karen Attiah to write an opinion column for The Washington Post. On October 2, 2018, Khashoggi went to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, to get a marriage license. Fifteen Saudi security personnel were waiting for him. They strangled him, and a surgeon in their group dismembered his body. It was never recovered. The CIA later determined that he was killed by direct order of Crown Prince MBS.

Since 2018, MBS has been in disrepute in the West. A few days ago, MBS was an honored guest at the White House. Trump spread a red carpet, praised him lavishly, and commended his record on human rights. He was almost as obsequious to MBS as he is to Putin.

A Warm Welcome for an Assassin

When a reporter asked about Khashoggi, Trump angrily said that the victim was “controversial” and “some people didn’t like him,” and reporters should not ask such disrespectful questions.

Trump cannot plead ignorance about what happened. He was President in 2018, when Khashoggi was murdered.

If you are on BlueSky, you might want to read Karen Attiah’s reaction to Trump’s defense of MBS.

In one of her comments, she wrote:

I will never forget having to edit Jamal’s final, posthumous piece for the Washington Post, after he was murdered.

He was calling for free expression in the Arab world. You can read it here :

A note from Karen Attiah, Global Opinions editor

I received this column from Jamal Khashoggi’s translator and assistant the day after Jamal was reported missing in Istanbul. The Post held off publishing it because we hoped Jamal would come back to us so that he and I could edit it together. Now I have to accept: That is not going to happen. This is the last piece of his I will edit for The Post. This column perfectly captures his commitment and passion for freedom in the Arab world. A freedom he apparently gave his life for. I will be forever grateful he chose The Post as his final journalistic home one year ago and gave us the chance to work together. 

I was recently online looking at the 2018 “Freedom in the World” report published by Freedom House and came to a grave realization. There is only one country in the Arab world that has been classified as “free.”

That nation is TunisiaJordanMorocco and Kuwait come second, with a classification of “partly free.” The rest of the countries in the Arab world are classified as “not free.”

As a result, Arabs living in these countries are either uninformed or misinformed. They are unable to adequately address, much less publicly discuss, matters that affect the region and their day-to-day lives. A state-run narrative dominates the public psyche, and while many do not believe it, a large majority of the population falls victim to this false narrative. Sadly, this situation is unlikely to change.

The Arab world was ripe with hope during the spring of 2011. Journalists, academics and the general population were brimming with expectations of a bright and free Arab society within their respective countries. They expected to be emancipated from the hegemony of their governments and the consistent interventions and censorship of information. These expectations were quickly shattered; these societies either fell back to the old status quo or faced even harsher conditions than before.

My dear friend, the prominent Saudi writer Saleh al-Shehi, wrote one of the most famous columns ever published in the Saudi press. He unfortunately is now serving an unwarranted five-year prison sentence for supposed comments contrary to the Saudi establishment. The Egyptian government’s seizure of the entire print run of a newspaper, al-Masry al Youm, did not enrage or provoke a reaction from colleagues. These actions no longer carry the consequence of a backlash from the international community. Instead, these actions may trigger condemnation quickly followed by silence.

As a result, Arab governments have been given free rein to continue silencing the media at an increasing rate. There was a time when journalists believed the Internet would liberate information from the censorship and control associated with print media. But these governments, whose very existence relies on the control of information, have aggressively blocked the Internet. They have also arrested local reporters and pressured advertisers to harm the revenue of specific publications.

There are a few oases that continue to embody the spirit of the Arab Spring. Qatar’s government continues to support international news coverage, in contrast to its neighbors’ efforts to uphold the control of information to support the “old Arab order.” Even in Tunisia and Kuwait, where the press is considered at least “partly free,” the media focuses on domestic issues but not issues faced by the greater Arab world. They are hesitant to provide a platform for journalists from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen. Even Lebanon, the Arab world’s crown jewel when it comes to press freedom, has fallen victim to the polarization and influence of pro-Iran Hezbollah.

Who attended the White House dinner for Mohammed bin Salman November 19, 2025

The Arab world is facing its own version of an Iron Curtain, imposed not by external actors but through domestic forces vying for power. During the Cold War, Radio Free Europe, which grew over the years into a critical institution, played an important role in fostering and sustaining the hope of freedom. Arabs need something similar. In 1967, the New York Times and The Post took joint ownership of the International Herald Tribune newspaper, which went on to become a platform for voices from around the world.

My publication, The Post, has taken the initiative to translate many of my pieces and publish them in Arabic. For that, I am grateful. Arabs need to read in their own language so they can understand and discuss the various aspects and complications of democracy in the United States and the West. If an Egyptian reads an article exposing the actual cost of a construction project in Washington, then he or she would be able to better understand the implications of similar projects in his or her community.

The Arab world needs a modern version of the old transnational media so citizens can be informed about global events. More important, we need to provide a platform for Arab voices. We suffer from poverty, mismanagement and poor education. Through the creation of an independent international forum, isolated from the influence of nationalist governments spreading hate through propaganda, ordinary people in the Arab world would be able to address the structural problems their societies face.

Would you be surprised to learn that a small group of plutocrats has plotted to perpetuate MAGA, subvert democracy, and maintain their control over our nation? I was not. I expected that this was happening, that Trump was the dummy manipulated by right-wing extremists who want to keep their taxes low while ignoring the welfare of the American people.

Elizabeth Dworkin of The Washington Post told the story recently. It’s as dangerous as I imagined.

Dwoskin reports:

In 2019, a small group of right-wing donors rented a resort outside the 100-person town of Rockbridge, Ohio, for a summit to secure the future of the MAGA movement. They aimed to turn a singular candidate — President Donald Trump — into an enduring political coalition, with a pipeline of voters, donors and candidates that would cement a radical transformation of the GOP.


Convened by Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel and JD Vance, then an investor who had written a best-selling memoir, the meeting included hedge fund heiress Rebekah Mercer, then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson and economist Oren Cass, according to two people familiar with the meeting. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private gathering, details of which have not been previously reported.


But the person in the room who would solidify the group’s ambitions was someone with a decidedly lower profile: an Arizona insurance entrepreneur and conservative media figure named Chris Buskirk.

Today, Buskirk helms the Rockbridge Network, a secretive organization birthed out of the weekend gathering that has established itself as one of the most influential forces in GOP politics. Political strategists credit the close-knit network of businessmen-cum-donors with helping fuel the president’s reelection last year and propelling one of its own — Vance — into the vice presidency.

With significant funding from tech leaders, Rockbridge aims to equip MAGA to outlive Trump. The group has no website or public-facing entity, but it has assembled pollsters, data crunchers, online advertisers and even a documentary film arm. It is gearing up to deploy its arsenal in the 2026 midterms and in the 2028 presidential contest, in which many Rockbridge members hope Vance will be the nominee. The group has assembled a database with deep profiles of potential voters through nonpolitical memberships, including outdoors groups and churches, according to a person directly familiar with the organization.


Buskirk’s ties to Trump’s orbit go beyond Rockbridge. 1789 Capital, the venture capital firm he co-founded with investor Omeed Malik, focuses on what the partners call “patriotic capitalism” and now counts Donald Trump Jr. as a partner. The pair — along with administration officials and friends — recently launched Executive Branch, a $500,000-a-head membership club for Trump-supporting business leaders to hobnob in D.C.


These organizations have a collective ambition, according to Buskirk, which is to give the businesspeople he sees as vital to the country’s future a role shaping government and lasting political power.


Their efforts are grounded in a controversial theory of social progress: that a select group of elites are exactly the right people to move the country forward, a position Buskirk argues is not in defiance of MAGA’s populism. Putting industry leaders in positions of power is a hallmark of Trump’s presidency — from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to tech titan Elon Musk — and Buskirk says the MAGA movement has energized a new generation of stewards for the country.

His various projects echo what some on the right call “aristopopulism” and aim to build a bridge between wealthy capitalists and the working-class people they intend to represent, according to interviews with Buskirk and nine other people in his inner circle, profitably reindustrializing the country and tying their interests to that of their base.


“You either have an extractive elite — an oligarchy — or you have a productive elite — an aristocracy — in every society,” he said in an interview in his office in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Many innovative periods in history have been driven by such an aristocracy, Buskirk argues, a point he makes in his 2023 book, “America and the Art of the Possible.” “In the classic Greek sense,” the term isn’t pejorative, he says, but “a proper elite that takes care of the country and governs it well so that everyone prospers.”

As Buskirk sees it, he has approached the political market as a businessman, identifying a gap and taking deliberate steps to close it. The right had what he calls a “coordination problem” — voters who had unexpectedly elected Trump and a nascent group of wealthy people who had become alienated by the progressive left. But the sides lacked organizing infrastructure.

Buskirk uses a one-liner to describe his efforts: “Brains-plus-money-plus-base.”
Others describe his impact more forcefully. Though people still see Trump’s support as “a cult of personality,” said Cass, chief economist of the conservative think tank American Compass, a powerful ecosystem now backs the MAGA movement.


“Chris is the convener of that ecosystem,” he added.

He declined to comment on Rockbridge’s founding event. Thiel declined to comment. Mercer did not respond to a request for comment.
Relatively unknown outside his rarefied circle of business leaders and tacticians, Buskirk is an unusual figure to step into a role once dominated by the Koch brothers, the deep-pocketed Republican megadonors who have opposed many of Trump’s trade policies. He is not a meme-throwing MAGA firebrand; friends describe Buskirk as a dogged tactician who is fiercely perceptive. He was “the first mover” to recognize that there were going to be thousands of well-off people who “no longer felt at home in the Democratic Party,” said Malik, Buskirk’s partner and co-founder of 1789 Capital.

Vance told The Post in a statement that Buskirk is an “original thinker” who saw, “before almost anyone,” how the “right combination of ideas, organizing and funding can ensure lasting political success for the Republican Party.”
Outside of electoral politics, Buskirk’s projects aim to push unrestrained capitalism into American life. 1789 Capital, he says, serves as a testing ground for the idea that homegrown innovation can revive America’s industrial base, what the firm’s partners pitch on their website as “the next chapter of American exceptionalism.” The firm, which has invested in roughly 30 companies, has funded start-ups tied to “anti-woke” politics and to the Trump administration’s economic agenda, including companies that mine rare earth minerals, build AI factories for war or 3D-print rocket fuel.
As Buskirk’s network has become entwined with the Trump administration, the cohort has formed a party circuit for Washington’s new power broker class. Rockbridge’s semiannual conference, at the Ritz-Carlton on Key Biscayne, Florida, in April, which featured “Make America Healthy Again”-themed breath work and yoga sessions, included Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff. Buskirk’s friend, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., attended the opening of Executive Branch in June, which serves high-end wine and sushi but no seed oils.


Those in Buskirk’s network view their growing clout as evidence of government finally working to cheerlead rather than chastise society’s innovators — unleashing a pent-up economic engine that they say was suppressed during the Biden administration.

Yet in entities like Rockbridge and 1789, some critics see something more pernicious — the rise of a group of unelected American oligarchs who are undermining Trump’s promises to benefit working people. Since coming into office, the Trump White House has rolled out a raft of new policies that benefit tech entrepreneurs, including lifting export controls on AI technology and signing executive orders and legislation promoting cryptocurrency. “President Trump’s first and only focus is restoring prosperity for the working-class Americans who resoundingly re-elected him back to the White House,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.
Since Trump Jr. joined 1789 as a partner last November, the firm has raised hundreds of millions of dollars and now has more than $1 billion in assets, according to two people familiar with the firm. This summer the government dropped two Biden-era federal investigations into Polymarket, a blockchain-based betting start-up that 1789 has invested in and where Trump Jr. now sits on an advisory board.
“It’s generally the case that what’s good for business is good for America, but I don’t think the people surrounding the president are representative of American business,” said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, which has received funding from the Kochs’ philanthropic network. “The government’s job is to advance the prosperity of the nation and not the prosperity of wealthy individuals, founders and executives.”
To Buskirk, these critiques miss the point. He says he is determined to bring the businesspeople who put Trump back in the White House to Washington, even if he doesn’t much like the city. He describes politics as “venal” and D.C. think tanks as “every cliché, squared,” saying the culture must be rebuilt from the ground up.

“So that’s not an attractive place to spend time, but it’s also really necessary,” he said. “Self-government means you have to actually be involved in something you don’t want to do.”
‘A coordination problem’
Ask Buskirk to rattle off where he is on any given day, and the 56-year-old father of four might name seven different cities. He splits his time between his Scottsdale family office; Palm Beach, Florida, where 1789 Capital is headquartered; Dallas; San Francisco; Austin; and, reluctantly, D.C. He says he is on the phone from the moment he wakes up until bedtime, always making time for Vance when the vice president’s schedule allows.
But Buskirk’s early life was spent almost entirely in Arizona. Though he was born on a military base in Germany, where his father was stationed in the Army during the Cold War, he grew up in Scottsdale. He spent weekends working at the family company, which insured homes and small businesses across the state. The household was “patriotic to the nth degree,” Buskirk recalls, and they were stalwart subscribers to the conservative magazine the National Review.

As a young adult, Buskirk pursued a master’s degree in political theory and interned at the Claremont Institute, the right-wing think tank inspired by the political philosopher Leo Strauss.
But he quit both the think tank and the degree, judging academia too impractical. He returned home to Scottsdale to start an insurance firm, doing underwriting for ambulance vendors and other unconventional businesses. Over the next two decades, he built and sold four other insurance-related companies.
His family had become alienated from politics. The Buskirks canceled their National Review subscriptions in the mid-2000s, disgusted by a Republican establishment they believed had led the country astray. The Iraq War had become “a smoke screen,” Buskirk said, distracting from the stark economic problems emerging before his eyes.


Visiting close family in Michigan, he watched as entire “factories were literally just packed up, crated into 40-foot containers and sent to China” after the country joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, he said. Americans, he said, were going to work in low-paying service jobs: $8 an hour at McDonald’s vs. $25 at the Ford plant. Then illegal immigrants came and took those jobs too, he said.

He raged to friends that the American Dream, “that you don’t have to do anything extraordinary to live a dignified life,” was becoming harder, but he felt powerless. “I was just, like, some guy in Arizona,” he recalled. “What am I going to do?”
When President Barack Obama came on the scene in the late aughts, Buskirk watched as he electrified the culture. In contrast, he felt the GOP and its institutions had languished on autopilot.
During those years, Buskirk had sold off the last of the insurance businesses he had built with his father. By the time Trump came down the golden escalator at Trump Tower to announce his presidential candidacy in 2015, Buskirk had more time on his hands.
The Arizona entrepreneur was initially skeptical of the New York reality show host who he worried viewed the presidency as a publicity stunt. But when he watched old interviews with Trump, he heard a drumbeat about how American leaders were not putting Americans first.
“I’m like, he’s actually been saying the same thing for 40 years!” Buskirk recalled. “And that’s when I realized, okay, he’s for real. And the people that are saying he is not serious are lying.”

In July 2016, Buskirk founded an online magazine, American Greatness, which highlighted an “undeniable” need for a new articulation of conservatism. It received funding from Thiel, who had shocked liberal Silicon Valley with his million-dollar donation to Trump and had recently been introduced to Buskirk by a friend. “The soil of the conservative movement is exhausted,” the editors wrote in an opening manifesto. “It needs fertilization, resowing, and diligent cultivation if it is to thrive again.”
Thiel put Buskirk in touch with his protégé, “Hillbilly Elegy” author Vance. Vance and Buskirk became fast friends.
The men spent a year and a half “just nerding out,” with no particular end in mind, Buskirk recalls, just a feeling that “we should create something.”

Vice President-elect Mike Pence, left, and PayPal founder Peter Thiel listen to President-elect Donald Trump during a meeting with technology industry leaders at Trump Tower in New York in 2016. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
In 2019, Vance and Thiel summoned a dozen or so people to an inn in rural Ohio, located just outside the tiny town that would become the organization’s namesake. Some attendees were staunchly pro-Trump, like Buskirk. Others had their doubts. But all of them felt that any successes that took place during the Trump years could easily become a fluke if a Democrat retook the White House, said Blake Masters, an investor who met Buskirk that weekend.

“We spent so much time bemoaning the effectiveness of the left,” Masters adds. “They had a pretty terrible agenda … but they are very effective at organizing. … The right had just been coasting for a long time, and its institutions had just started to decay.”
It became clear to some of those present that MAGA had a network problem. While donors on the right, such as the Kochs, had spent years building their organizations, wealthy people who supported Trump and the emerging constellation of right-wing viewpoints he represented “didn’t really know each other,” Buskirk said. And people who had voted for Trump — including a working-class cohort — weren’t organized either.
“There’s no coordination. No management. No planning. It all just kind of happened,” he recalled. “What if we just said, okay, look, these are two problems that, if solved, would make everything else work better and be more effective. Let’s set about solving that.”
The making of a movement
Buskirk returned from the summit energized, and he became a student of political organizing. He started from first principles, reading “Roots to Power,” an influential left-wing organizing manual from the ’80s.

Along with Vance, he began creating case studies of political organizations on the left and right, documenting their failures and successes. The National Rifle Association stood out. The NRA, Buskirk and his partners concluded, had been very successful at organizing one of its two constituencies: Second Amendment advocates. But its other constituency, outdoorsmen who loved hunting, was not as well organized, and they were unlikely to register to vote.
But outdoorsmen, a Democratic coalition from the ’60s, had significant overlap with demographics that voted for Trump.
“This is actually going to be a hole that needs to be filled,” he said, if he could find something “that makes it worth their time to actually pay attention.”

Chris Buskirk took it upon himself to become a student of political organizing. (Ash Ponders/For The Washington Post)
Buskirk will not go into many details about Rockbridge operations, but he says that on a high level he devised a classic online sales funnel to entice people to join social media groups based on affiliations. This included small-business owners, outdoorsmen and church attendees.

This is the opposite of how political organizations tend to function, persuading people to come to your side by “brute force,” Buskirk said, blasting out ads right before an election. Rockbridge, by contrast, took a more gradual approach: “Build a trust relationship and give people some sort of benefit. Only then you can ask them to do something.”
By April 2022, Vance was making his first, long-shot bid for political office. Malik hosted a small fundraiser for him at a restaurant in Palm Beach. The investor had relocated from New York City the previous year, after defecting from the Democratic Party over coronavirus restrictions and tech platforms’ policing of speech about the coronavirus. Buskirk attended, along with Don Jr.
The group hopped over to Mar-a-Lago, where Buskirk was throwing a Rockbridge conference.
The men spent the week bonding over their rage about what they viewed as online censorship and a feeling that innovation was being stymied in favor of liberal priorities such as sustainability and diversity initiatives.

“A lot of us are also about the same age,” noted Malik, who said he feels the group is ushering in “a generational shift.”
Malik and Buskirk went into business together the following year, starting 1789 Capital, named after the year the Bill of Rights was proposed. It initially focused on what Malik had dubbed “anti-woke companies.” Their first investment was in Last Country Inc., a new media and entertainment company founded by Tucker Carlson, who had been pushed out of Fox News. The partners went on to invest in GrabAGun, an online gun marketplace; Enhanced Games, which allows athletes to take performance-enhancing drugs; and Hadrian, a start-up making AI factories for defense. (The partners have also taken positions in three of Elon Musk’s companies: SpaceX, Neuralink and xAI.)
Will Edwards, whose Dallas-based start-up Firehawk Aerospace specializes in 3D-printing solid rocket fuel to be used in missiles, said many Silicon Valley venture capitalists had rejected his pitches outright because they didn’t want to fund companies selling exclusively to the military.
“Chris thought that was absurd,” Edwards said.

Buskirk, who has since led a funding round that put $60 million into Firehawk, took a particular interest, traveling to Dallas to tour Edwards’s factory, where, he said, workers without college degrees can make six-figure incomes.
Buskirk believes Edwards’s company is economic proof of the investors’ political arguments: The United States is unlikely to make iPhones and Nike shoes again, he says. But it can revive its industrial base — particularly in national defense — and help restore the middle class.
This goal is one President Joe Biden also tried to accomplish when he signed the $52 billion Chips Act in 2022, which aimed to re-shore advanced manufacturing jobs with the largest support package for domestic chips manufacturing in a generation. Trump has criticized the grants as wasteful and clawed back some of the funds.
Strain, the American Enterprise Institute economist, said the political rhetoric of the MAGA movement misconstrues the nation’s actual economic picture. Technological innovation — and not outsourcing — has been the main driver of the loss of manufacturing jobs, he said, adding that many of those arguing that homegrown manufacturing will revive America are the same investors pushing major labor displacement through artificial intelligence.

Cass, of American Compass, said the scale of investment required to rebuild working-class communities is far greater than what 1789 or other like-minded investors can spend. But the experiments Buskirk and his partners are funding are important, he said, because they “blaze a trail.”
The impact of Rockbridge and super PACs on the 2024 election is not well understood. Rockbridge’s affiliated super PAC, Turnout for America, was one of a handful of groups that canvassed swing states on behalf of the Trump campaign, including Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point Action. Turnout for America spent $34.5 million on the 2024 cycle, according to FEC records, far less than the $261 million from Elon Musk’s America PAC.
But internal Rockbridge data suggests some measure of effectiveness, which insiders attribute to its years-long voter profiling and mobilization efforts. The super PAC identified several million citizens — low-propensity voters in seven swing states — that they believed would vote for Trump if nudged to go to the polls. The group calculated that Trump would win those states if they could motivate 40 percent of those voters to go to the polls. In the end, Rockbridge’s 3,000 canvassers turned out 50 percent, said two people with direct knowledge of internal stats.
Today, the group’s vibe is euphoric. Interest has surged since the election, according to Buskirk, with roughly half of new members coming from the tech industry. Several of the group’s members are billionaires; prominent investors Marc Andreessen and David Sacks are already members.

Still, Firehawk founder Edwards, who joined Rockbridge with an invitation from Buskirk, said the events feel warm, “like a close group of people who enjoy each other’s company.” Edwards said he lives in a duplex and drives a Toyota. A wide age range is represented, including NextGen, an under-30 division that includes Buskirk’s son, Chris, a recent college graduate.
Richard Painter, a corporate law professor at the University of Minnesota who served as chief ethics lawyer in the Bush White House, said this influx of interest in Rockbridge, 1789 and Executive Branch creates the appearance of a “pay to play” network, of people who are paying to get access to administration officials or the Trump family. (He also said he would have advised administration officials not to attend these gatherings if they happened in his time.)
Buskirk declined to address this criticism.
In a text message sent while overseas on business, he said that American greatness will only be accomplished “by the intentional cultivation of talented, high-agency people working together in high-trust environments.”

His book lists historical moments when elite networks moved society forward, including Florence during the Renaissance, mid-century America, and the county of Lancashire, England, during the Industrial Revolution. The Scottish Enlightenment was actually “the work of a few dozen people,” he notes, who “developed long-term friendships” at a private social club called the Select Society.
Parallels to remarkably innovative historical periods were starting to happen, he said, but “the full flourishing of America’s latent potential” was not guaranteed.
“I pray that it is,” he said. “There is much to be done.”

Ian Millhiser of Vox wrote about the stunning decision by a Federal Appeals Court to throw out Texas’ gerrymander. At Trump’s insistence, the Governor and legislature districted the state’s Congressional districts, in hopes of producing five more Republican seats. Trump and Republican House leaders are terrified that they could lose their slim majority.

Millhiser points out the supreme irony that it was Trump’s own Justice Departnent that provided the grounds to toss the redistricting. The Supreme Ciurt recently ruled that it would not interfere with gerrymanders, a strictly political decision. But gerrymandering for the specific purpose of reducing racial representation is unconstitutional. Unless the Supreme Court abandons its recent precedent and do Trump a big favor.

Millhiser writes:

In a decision that could potentially reshape the 2026 midterm elections and cement the Democratic Party’s future control of the US House, a federal court just struck down the gerrymandered Texas maps that President Donald Trump pressured that state to enact. If the decision holds, it could cost Republicans as many as five House seats.

And that’s not all. The most remarkable thing about the three-judge panel’s decision in League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Abbott is that it turns on an incompetent decision by Trump’s own administration. 

As Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, explains in the court’s opinion, Texas lawmakers initially “didn’t have much appetite to redistrict on purely partisan grounds” — even as Trump urged them to do so. But Texas Republicans appear to have changed their mind after the Justice Department sent a letter last July to Texas’s top officials, which demanded that the state redraw several districts to change their racial makeup.

That letter, as I’ll explain in more detail below, misread a federal appeals court opinion to mean that the state was required to remake its maps. According to Judge Brown’s opinion, “it’s challenging to unpack the DOJ Letter because it contains so many factual, legal, and typographical errors.” He added that “even attorneys employed by the Texas Attorney General — who professes to be a political ally of the Trump Administration — describe the DOJ Letter as ‘legally[] unsound,’ ‘baseless,’ ‘erroneous,’ ‘ham-fisted,’ and ‘a mess.’”

In reality, the Supreme Court has long held that “if a legislature gives race a predominant role in redistricting decisions, the resulting map” is subject to the most skeptical level of constitutional review and “may be held unconstitutional.” When the Justice Department told Texas to redraw several of its congressional districts to change their racial makeup, it ordered Texas to give “race a predominant role.” Oops.

Please open the link to finish the article.

Department after department, agency after agency, in the Federal government has been killed or destroyed by the Trump administration. Foreign aid, which had decades of bipartisan support, was virtually eliminated, meaning certain death for hundreds of thousand of children and families who count on the U.S. for food and medicine. The Department of Defense is now called the Department of War, without Congressional approval. The Consumer Financial Board is gone. The Department of Education has been eviscerated. Civil rights enforcement has been turned upside down, to exclude vulnerable groups for which it was intended.

Jan Resseger is a brilliant, thoughtful analyst of education. I encourage you to sign up for her blog. Here she takes a deep dive into what this chaos means for public schools and students:

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‘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 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‘s 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‘Mark Lieberman addsthat 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.

Trump said he would close the Department of Education, and he’s well on the way to closing a Congressionally-authorized Department without asking Congress for permission.

He and wrestling entrepreneur Linda McMahon have decided that the Department is responsible for stagnant test scores. Nothing could be stupider but what would one expect from people who look with contempt on education. Especially public schools.

I cannot explain their thinking but know this: Trump wants to destroy research into science and medicine. He wants to control the curriculum and to ban teaching about race, ethnicity and gender.

As Forrest Gump’s mother taught him: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Michael C. Bender of The New York Times wrote:

The Trump administration announced on Tuesday an aggressive plan to continue dismantling the Education Department, ending the agency’s role in supporting academics at elementary and high schools and in expanding access to college.

Those responsibilities will instead be largely taken over by the Labor Department.

Additional changes include moving a child care grant program for college students and foreign medical school accreditation to the Health and Human Services Department, and transferring Fulbright programs and international education grants to the State Department. The Interior Department will take over the Indian Education Office.

Shifting duties away from the Education Department aligns with President Trump’s goal of eventually closing the agency, a move opposed by teachers’ unions and student rights groups and one that can only be accomplished with an act of Congress.

Less clear was how moving programs to other agencies aligned with Mr. Trump’s reason for closing the Education Department, which he has said was to give states more power in shaping school policies. A senior official at the Education Department said the changes would streamline bureaucracy so that “at the end of the day, it means more dollars to the classroom.”

“Cutting through layers of red tape in Washington is one essential piece of our final mission,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement, adding that the changes were an attempt to “refocus education on students, families and schools.”

The plan drew some immediate blowback from Republicans, including Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who said in a statement that the “department’s core offices are not discretionary functions.”

“They are foundational,” Mr. Fitzpatrick said. “They safeguard civil rights, expand opportunity, and ensure that every child, in every community, has the chance to learn, grow and succeed on equal footing.”

Kevin Carey, the vice president for education and work at New America, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, said the changes were “wasteful, wrong and illegal.”

“Secretary McMahon is creating a bureaucratic Rube Goldberg machine that will waste millions of taxpayer dollars by outsourcing vital programs to other agencies,” Mr. Carey said. “It’s like paying a contractor double to mow your lawn and then claiming you’ve cut the home maintenance budget. It makes no sense.”

Administration officials have pointed to the recent federal shutdown to justify the moves, noting that schools remained open and students continued to be taught despite nearly all of the Education Department’s staff having been furloughed.

The department has posted several social media memes making such a point. In an X post last week, the department announced that federal workers were returning to the office, adding, “But let’s be honest: did you really miss us at all?”

Liz Huston, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration was committed to shrinking the agency “while still ensuring efficient delivery of funds and essential programs.”

“The Democrat shutdown made one thing unmistakably clear: Students and teachers don’t need Washington bureaucrats micromanaging their classrooms,” Ms. Huston said.

Republicans in charge of the House and Senate in Washington have signaled little enthusiasm for voting on a bill to close the department, which was created by an act of Congress in 1979.

Mr. Trump has also shown little interest in collaborating with Congress in his bid to reshape the federal government, and his administration has continued to seek ways to diminish the Education Department.

“We’re going to shut it down, and shut it down as quickly as possible,” Mr. Trump said in March after signing an executive orderthat directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to start razing the department.

Ms. McMahon’s first act after joining Mr. Trump’s cabinet this year was to instruct the department’s staff to prepare for its “final mission” of shuttering the agency. The following week, Ms. McMahon fired 1,315 of those workers.

The layoffs decimated the department’s Office for Civil Rights, which was created to enforce Congress’s promise of equal educational opportunity for all students, and eliminated the agency’s research armdedicated to tracking U.S. student achievement, which for many students is at three-decade lows.

In July, after the Supreme Court cleared the way for mass layoffs at the department, the administration moved adult education, family literacy programs and career and technical education to the Labor Department.

While going through my Internet feed, this interesting interview popped up. It was Jimmy Kimmel interviewing former President George W. Bush. You may think it odd to look back on a president reviled by Democrats for launching years of war that cost the lives of so many Americans and changed so little.

But what fascinated me about this interview was the book that former President was selling. It’s a compilation of some of his paintings.

Its title, Out of Many, One: Portraits of America’s Immigrants.

It is described as:

“A collection of portraits and stories celebrating the resilience and contributions of immigrants to America.”

George W. Bush’s brother Jeb is married to Columba Garnico Galla (Bush), who was born in León, Guanajuato, Mexico. They have three children and four grandchildren, all of whom share her Mexican descent.

Neither George nor Jeb has ever endorsed Trump (although Jeb’s son, George P. Bush, has). None of the Bush family has denounced Trump’s vile characterizations of Mexican-Americans or his orders to ICE to deport them, as brutally as necessary.

Mexican-Americans and other immigrants that George W. Bush celebrated in his book are living in fear and snatched away from their jobs, their homes, and their families.

Wouldn’t it be great if George or Jeb or other members of the Bush family spoke out against Trump’s vicious attacks on our immigrant neighbors?

Deport “the worst of the worst,” as Trump promised, and give the others a path to citizenship.

This delightful article appeared in the New York Times.

In the recent election in Virginia, 19-year-old Cameron Drew ran for a seat on the Surry County Board of Supervisors and won by a mere 10 votes. Even more interesting, the candidate he beat was his high school teacher of civics, history, and government.

Drew won 345 votes. His former teacher, Kenneth Bell, received 335.

The New York Times wrote:

The election, to represent the Dendron district, wasn’t contentious. In fact, Mr. Drew said he remained “very close” with his former teacher, fondly recalling that Mr. Bell twice took him to Richmond to shadow lawmakers. Mr. Bell, for his part, said he was “over the moon” when he found out who he would be running against.

“He’s the type of student that if teachers could have a little cloning machine in their classrooms to duplicate, he would be all over the place,” Mr. Bell said.

Surry County, with a population of about 6,500, is in a rural area of southeastern Virginia between Richmond and Norfolk. The five members of the county board serve four-year terms.

A seat opened up in July when a board member resigned, and both Mr. Bell and Mr. Drew raised their hands for an interim appointment. The board seated Mr. Bell. Mr. Drew then gathered the 125 signatures needed to get on the ballot for Tuesday’s special election.

A bald man in a pink T-shirt and glasses.
Kenneth Bell was appointed to a vacant seat on the Surry County Board of Supervisors earlier this year.Credit…Kenneth Bell

“I saw that the youth wasn’t always taken care of or just appreciated, so I was like, ‘Hey, it’s time for me to step up,’” said Mr. Drew, who is studying business administration at Virginia Peninsula Community College in Hampton, Va.

He made direct-to-camera appeals to voters on Instagram, dressed in a suit and positioning himself as someone “who’s looking to move Surry forward, while retaining our rural charm,” as he put it in one post

Mr. Bell said that, because of his affection for Mr. Drew, he didn’t campaign aggressively.

Mr. Drew reported spending $2,295 on his campaign, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonpartisan group that tracks voting data. Mr. Bell spent nothing.

Mr. Bell and Mr. Drew, neither of whom ran on a party line, largely agreed on the issues and held just one joint town hall-style forum. Describing himself as a philanthropist, Mr. Drew told the audience, “It’s time to bring young minds to the table.”

The campaign centered on local issues, though some, such as affordable housing, have resonated nationally. Mr. Drew focused particularly on how to incentivize young people to stay in the area.

On election night, Mr. Drew was at a watch party for a mentor of his, Kimberly Pope Adams, who flipped a seat in the House of Delegates, helping Democrats increase their majority.

On the Virginia elections website, Mr. Drew saw that he had eked out a victory — a moment he called “surreal.” Mr. Bell called to concede. They had a pleasant five-minute conversation.

“He was like, ‘If you ever need anything from me, just let me know,’” Mr. Drew said. “He was, once again, still the supportive person he has always been.”

Mr. Bell said there was “not a sad bone in his body” that he lost.

“I have found that is not the answer people in our community want me to give,” Mr. Bell said. “I think everybody wants me to be in a depression and sad. It’s because I know Cameran and I know the quality of a person that he is. And so I can’t be sad.”

Trump ordered U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate Democrats who participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of girls and young women. Apparently, it’s ok for Republicans to mess around with girl victims, but not Democrats.

As Attorney General of Florida from 2011 to 2019, Bondi declared that finding and prosecuting sex traffickers was one of her top priorities.

Dean Obeidallah finds it strange that Pam Bondi never investigated Jeffrey Epstein, who resumed his predatory sex trade after serving a light sentence in 2008. By Bondi’s account today, Epstein had at least 1,000 victims.

Yet she ignored him.

Why?

Obeidallah writes:

What we truly need is an investigation into Pam Bondi. Specifically, why didn’t she investigate Jeffrey Epstein for the countless sex crimes he committed against children and women in Florida when she served as Florida’s Attorney General?!

Taking a step back, when Bondi served for eight years as Florida’s top law enforcement officer, she very publicly declared that investigating and prosecuting sexual predators—especially those who preyed on children–a top priority. Indeed, as Florida’s AG, she announced an initiative focused on “Making Florida a Zero-Tolerance state for Human trafficking.”

To that end, in 2013 she proudly boasted about the arrest of 15 child sex predators as part of a five-day investigation known as Operation e-Guardian. At the time, Bondi stated, “Sadly, sexual predators will use any means available to them, including the Internet, to lure children in order to exploit them. This operation was a great multi-agency collaboration that has brought down 15 child predators.”

And in 2018, Bondi launched a confidential tip website for people to report allegations of past child sex abuse by Catholic priests in Florida. She statedthen that any “priest that would exploit a position of power and trust to abuse a child is a disgrace to the church and a threat to society.” Bondi added, “I am calling on victims and anyone with information about potential abuse to please report it to my office.”

Yet despite this very public commitment to investigate and bring to justice people involved in sex crimes against children—even those committed years earlier–she never announced an investigation into or prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein. (At least no investigation that was publicly reported.)

Stephen Dyer is a former legislator who keeps watch on the ways that Ohio Republicans have cheated public school students. Ohio Republicans love charters and vouchers, even though taxpayers have been ripped off repeatedly for years by grifters.

He writes on his blog Tenth Period:

Look, I like Greg Lawson as a guy. We’ve been on panels together and fought over things on the radio and in other places. 

But man, he really, really thinks y’all are stupid.

In an op-ed he had published in the Columbus Dispatch yesterday where he argued that public school districts whine too much about money, he made the following claim:

“State K-12 spending in 2023 was 39.5% higher than in 2010 — and school spending in 2024 and 2025 shows no sign of cooling off: “State funding for primary and secondary education totaled $11.64 billion in FY 23; was $13 billion in FY 24 (a $1.36 billion or 11.7% increase); and is estimated at $13.42 billion in FY 25, the second year of the state budget (a $415.8 million or 3.2% increase).”

See, Greg wants you to conclude something from these numbers: that public school districts are swimming in money and their griping over vouchers and his budget-sucking agenda is bullshit. It’s those greedy bastards in your local school districts that are causing your property taxes to skyrocket.

What he leaves out is that the numbers he’s using to make the districts-swimming-in-money claim include money for charter schools and vouchers

That’s right. 

He’s writing an entire article complaining that school districts whine too much about vouchers taking away money from public school kids by citing K-12 expenditure data that … includes money going to vouchers and charter schools.

Can’t make it up.

I’ll break down his ridiculous claim in two parts. 

Part I — Overall K-12 Funding

First, let’s look at the overall claim — massive increases to K-12 spending. Forget about the fact that the voucher and charter money need to be deducted out of that number. 

Let’s just look at Greg’s topline claim — the state’s spending tons more now than 15 years ago on K-12 education, so quit whining! 

Yes. Spending is up. But you know what else is up? 

Inflation

See, in the 2009-2010 school year, the state spent a total of $7.9 billion on K-12 education. In the 2024-2025 school year, that number was $11.5 billion. 

Big jump, right?

Well, if you adjust for 2025 dollars, that $7.9 billion spent on K-12 education in 2009-2010 is the equivalent of $11.9 billion, or about $400 million less than what the state spent on K-12 education last school year.

Let me repeat that.

The state is spending the equivalent of $400 million less on K-12 education than they did 15 years ago, adjusted for inflation.

Funny Greg didn’t mention that.

Part II — Privatizers Force Property Tax Increases

Now let’s look at charters and vouchers. Let’s just set aside how poorly charters prepare kids, or how the EdChoice program is an unconstitutional scheme that provides not a single dollar to a parent or child and voucher test scores aren’t great either, compared with school district counterparts.

Let’s just look at the money.

In the 2009-2010 school year, Ohio sent $768 million to charter schools and vouchers. 

Last school year, that number was $2.3 billion. 

For those of you scoring at home, that’s a more than 100% increase in funding for these privatization efforts … above inflation!

So while in 2009-2010 the state spent about same percentage of their K-12 spend on the percentage of kids who attended public schools at the time, last year the state spent 77% of their K-12 spend on the 84% of kids who attended public schools.

This cut in the share of state funding going to public school students can be directly tied to the state more than doubling the inflationary increase on charter schools and vouchers over the last 15 years.

Bottom line: What has this meant in funding for Ohio’s public school kids?

Well, in 2009-2010, the state, after deducting charter school and voucher funding, provided $7.1 billion for Ohio’s public school students. 

Adjusted for inflation, that’s $10.7 billion in today’s dollars. 

(I would also like to add that the 2009-2010 school year was the first year of the Evidence Based model of school funding that I shaped as the Chairman of the Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee on the Ohio House Finance Committee. We pulled off this investment — greater than last school year’s investment, adjusted for inflation — in the middle of the Great Recession. So it’s not like we had shit tons of money lying around the way lawmakers do nowWhich should tell you about the priorities back then vs. today.)

I digress.

Last school year, Ohio’s public school students received $9.1 billion.

That means that Ohio’s public school students are receiving $1.6 billion less, adjusted for inflation, than they did 15 years ago.

Should I mention here that not a single penny of the more than $1 billion going to vouchers is publicly audited to ensure the money goes to educate kids rather than Lambos for Administrators?

Anyway.

Put another way: If Ohio lawmakers and governors had simply kept the same commitment to charter schools and vouchers that they did 15 years ago and kept pace with inflation on their K-12 spend, Ohio’s public school students would have received $1.6 billion more last year than they actually did. 

In other words, we’d have a fully funded Fair School Funding Plan.

I’m not asking the legislature or Governor to do anything crazy here. No elimination of vouchers and charters. 

This is simply doing inflationary increases and making sure the percentage of state funding going to each sector (public, charter and voucher) matched the percentage of kids attending each sector. 

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, if the state had actually let “money follow the child”, Ohio’s public school students would have a fully funded Fair School Funding Plan and there would stillhave a $1.2 billion charter and voucher program!

Instead, state leaders have so overvalued private school vouchers and charter schools that now we have an unconstitutional EdChoice voucher program that doesn’t send a single dollar to a parent or student, charter schools that spend about double the amount per pupil on administration that public schools spend while tragically failing to graduate students, and a school funding formula that’s severely underfunded for the 84% of students who attend public school districts. 

While Greg might tell school districts, “Quit your bitching!”, I might humbly suggest that school districts haven’t bitched enough.

So when people complain about property taxes, directly point fingers at the Ohio legislature and Governor because they’re doing what they’ve always done — force you to fund the only thing — public schools — the Ohio Constitution requires them to fund. 

It’s governmental malpractice. And our kids are the ones who suffer.

The New York Times published a deeply researched article about the Trump administration’s systematic destruction of the U.S. Department of Justice.

This is a gift article, meaning that non-subscribers may open the link.

Traditionally, the Department of Justice is independent of the administration in power.

Trump has broken down all the guardrails that protected the Department from political interference.

Trump selected Pam Bondi as Attorney General to carry out his wishes. He selected his personal defense attorneys as Bondi’s top assistants. Hundreds of career officials were fired. Thousands have left. The ethics officer was fired, because he insisted that the Department abide by ethics rules. The pardons attorney was fired, because Trump wanted to give pardons to friends, like actor Mel Gibson, who wanted his gun rights restored despite his history of domestic violence.

The Justice Department is now completely under the personal control of Trump. It is an instrument of his whims.

In one example, the Department of Justice sued a prestigious law firm for discriminating against white men, even though the law firm is 97% white. Why? The firm has represented Democrats.

The agency responsible for investigating domestic terrorism has been gutted. Civil rights enforcement has turned to attacking racial inequities and defending aggrieved white men.

The New York Times is the one major newspaper that has not bowed to Trump or capitulated to his threats. We sometimes criticize the Times for its efforts to be “on the one hand, on the other,” but this is not one of those articles.

This is a straightforward demonstration of the politicization and gutting of a bedrock protector of our democracy.

This article documents the early stages of fascism.