Since Pete Hegseth became Secretary of Defense (War), he has purged some of the highest ranking officers in each branch of the military. This week, the latest target of Hegseth’s purge was a highly decorated 4-star general, who was offered a demotion to 3-star and of course, resigned.

Donahue is a graduate of West Point. He has a long record of service and leadership. He served in Special Ops for 20 years, became a member and eventually the Commander of Delta Force. He was also Commander of the 82nd Airborne. He was an active commander in Iraq and Afghanistan. In his last assignment, he was commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe and Africa.

Suffice it to say that his knowledge and experience of the military are a million times greater than Hegseth’s.

Steve Benen of MS NOW reported:

Most Americans probably don’t immediately recognize Army general Chris “C.D.” Donahue’s name, but they’ve probably seen a memorable picture of him: When U.S. forces withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021, Donahue was the last American service member to exit the country.

In the years that followed, the general took on other high-profile duties, becoming the head of Army forces in Europe and Africa. He was also widely seen as the next chief of staff of the Army. This week, however, Donahue’s career became notable for a very different reason. The Hill reported:

Gen. Chris Donahue, commander of U.S. Army Europe and Africa, submitted his paperwork to retire after a little over a year in his position, a Pentagon official told The Hill. 

The Pentagon official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal military deliberations.

An Army spokesperson soon after confirmed Donahue’s departure in an official statement, thanking the general “for his leadership of U.S. Army Europe and Africa.”

While military leaders retire with some regularity, there’s reason to believe that Donahue’s decision — announced after just 18 months in his position — was not altogether voluntary. CBS News, citing multiple sources, reported that the general exited the military after a lengthy and decorated career because he had “earned the ire of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.”

The Atlantic published a related report, describing Donahue as “the latest casualty” in Hegseth’s “purge of the military’s senior ranks.” (The reporting has not been independently verified by MS NOW, and the secretary and the Pentagon declined to comment.)

Indeed, Hegseth has been awfully busy throughout his tenure, not just fighting assorted “culture war” battlesbut also ousting key military leaders who failed to meet his vision to one degree or another. Just two months before Donahue’s exit, for example, the defense secretary also forced out Secretary of the Navy John Phelan.

Just three weeks before Phelan’s ouster, Hegseth also fired his Army chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, the Army’s top officer; Gen. David Hodne, the head of Army Transformation and Training Command; and Maj. Gen. William Green Jr., the chief of chaplains.

Those developments came on the heels of Hegseth forcing out Col. Dave Butler, who worked closely with George, which came after the defense secretary parted ways with three-star Lt. Gen. Joe McGee, which came just two weeks after the public learned about Adm. Alvin Holsey resigning as head of the U.S. Southern Command, reportedly at Hegseth’s request.

Unfortunately, that’s just the start. Just days before Holsey stepped down at Southern Command, the Pentagon chief fired Navy chief of staff Jon Harrison. (His ouster roughly coincided with two high-profile military retirements — Gen. Bryan Fenton, the head of U.S. Special Operations Command, and Gen. Thomas Bussiere, a top Air Force commander — though it’s unclear whether their departures had anything to do with Hegseth.)

There was no ambiguity, however, when in late August the defense secretary fired Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, who served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Rear Adm. Milton Sands, a Navy SEAL officer who oversaw the Naval Special Warfare Command.

Four days earlier, Gen. David Allvin, the chief of staff of the Air Force, was also shown the door.

The broader purge also includes Air Force general Timothy Haugh, who was both the head of U.S. Cyber Command and the director of the National Security Agency; Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. James Slife, former vice chief of staff of the Air Force; Adm. Linda Fagan, the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard; Adm. Lisa Franchetti; Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short; Lt. Gen. Joseph B. Berger III, the Army’s top military lawyer; Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer, the Air Force’s top military lawyer; and Navy Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, the only woman on NATO’s military committee.

Political scientist Caitlin Talmadge, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who specializes in foreign policy and military operations, recently notedvia social media, “Firing senior officers for cause is one thing. Firing them repeatedly on this scale and with no explanation is unprecedented in our nation’s history.”

The consequences matter: There are growing concerns that a scandal-plagued former Fox News host is destabilizing the U.S. military.

Marc Elias and his Democracy Docket are leading figures in the legal battle to stop Trump’s assault on our election system. Trump is trying to gain access to state voter rolls, and Elias has repeatedly defeated him in court.

To our national shame, Trump tells the world that American elections are “rigged.” Our free and fair elections are one of the major elements of our democracy. But the proof that they are rigged is that Trump got re-elected despite a disastrous first term, despite multiple convictions, and despite his allegiance to his fellow billionaires. The question is: how did he rig it? Was it Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites, 10,000 of them circling the earth? Someday we will know.

Elias writes:

Donald Trump desperately wants to build a national database of voters. His plan is to have his administration control who stays on the list and who gets removed. He has issued unconstitutional executive orders to accomplish this goal, and the U.S. Postal Service has proposed a new rule to do his bidding.

The problem for Trump is that his Department of Justice keeps losing cases that it needs to access this critical data. This humiliating string of defeats threatens to derail Trump’s signature plan to subvert the 2026 midterm elections.

This morning, a federal judge in Maryland handed the DOJ its ninth defeat in a series of 31 cases the department has filed to gain access to state voter files. The DOJ has yet to win a single one. The court wrote that it “joins every court to have addressed this issue in concluding that [a state voter file] is not a record or paper that a state must produce to the United States.”

Importantly, of the nine cases the DOJ has lost, five were decided by judges nominated by Trump. This is nothing short of a debacle for Attorney General Todd Blanche, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, and the rest of the department’s leadership.

From nearly the start of Trump’s second term, the DOJ began seeking access to these voter records. Initially, many assumed this was simply an effort to bolster false claims of widespread voter fraud.

Proponents of that theory contended that the administration would highlight a handful of names on the list as supposedly fraudulent — ginning up his supporters and providing talking points for Republican candidates.

From the start, I have argued that this plan was not simply about spreading lies and disinformation. It was not only aimed at creating an environment to undermine free and fair elections — it was the lynchpin to achieving that outcome.

The distinction is critical.

There remains a faction in the pro-democracy camp that believes Trump’s anti-voting rhetoric and actions are largely performative. They view the fights over the SAVE Act, mail-in voting and access to voter files as mostly a messaging effort.

Underpinning their view is the belief that our election systems are strong and that voter suppression laws are ineffective. Historically, they have treated legal fights over these laws as less important than the messages they send to voters.

By contrast, I take Trump’s attacks on voting rights both literally and seriously.

I believe voter suppression laws can alter the outcomes of elections, and I have watched our election system become weakened by years of sustained attacks. Most importantly, when Trump says he wants to take over voting and vote-counting, I believe him — and I plan accordingly.

That is why, when the DOJ started suing states to obtain access to their voter lists, I did not simply call it out — my law firm joined the legal fight. And we did not just pick a case or two. Instead, we made a substantial investment to defend the rights of voters in all 31 cases brought by the DOJ.

So far, that approach has paid off. Today’s victory brings us one step closer to the goal of protecting the 2026 midterm elections. However, Election Day is still months away, and many fights remain — both in court and in public.

In the days, weeks, and months to come, the midterms will come into sharper focus. As Republican electoral prospects wane, Trump will grow more desperate, and that desperation will lead to even more extreme actions by the administration. It will also require much more litigation.

On behalf of the Democratic Party, we have already sued to block Trump’s anti-voting executive orders. If the USPS adopts an anti-voting rule, we will bring litigation to stop it.

In the next few weeks, the Supreme Court is set to decide a critical mail-in voting case brought by the Republican National Committee. At issue is whether ballots mailed and postmarked by Election Day may be counted even if they arrive in the days afterwards.

The outcome could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters. My firm and I are defending against that lawsuit as well.

And, of course, the fight in the 31 voter file cases continues. Twenty-one trial courts have yet to rule, and the DOJ is appealing its defeats in nearly every case. In each one, we are battling back.

The road ahead for democracy is narrow and filled with obstacles — but we have already shown that we can clear them. I will continue to do everything I can in court to ensure safe passage for voters, and today’s victory is proof that when we fight, we can win.

Jan Resseger, stalwart champion of public schools, is alarmed by the damage that privatization inflicts on public schools, attended by the vast majority of children. She describes the erosion of public schools as “a national wave of educational injustice that has reached crisis proportions.”

Resseger writes:

On Monday, the Network for Public Education (NPE) released an urgently important report, Public Schooling in America: Measuring Each State’s Commitment to Democratically Governed Schools. The report ranks the states on their protection of the institution of public schools that serve the mass of our children and adolescents and the degree to which school privatization is undermining that promise.

In what I found to be the report’s most shocking statistic, 19 states now provide Education Savings Account (ESA) vouchers and ten of those states give ESA vouchers to “virtually every family regardless of income or need.” An ESA is a virtual debit card that parents whose children do not attend public schools can use to pay for any kind of privatized education or for materials and services the parents claim to be using to homeschool their children. What this really means is that many of these states are basically just giving money away to parents to use as they please without appreciable regulations or oversight.

The Network for Public Education (NPE) confirms “a troubling and consistent pattern.  The states most aggressively redirecting public funds toward private alternatives—charter schools, voucher programs, and education savings accounts—are the same states most neglectful of their public schools, their teachers, and their students.  Our analysis found a strong, statistically negative relationship between the expansion of privatization and public school support…. Privatization and disinvestment, it turns out, go hand in hand.”

What is the scale of the problem? “Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia now fund one or more private school voucher programs, and nineteen states operate Education Savings Account (ESA) programs… The charter school sector presents parallel concerns. Forty-seven states have charter school laws, and in the majority of them, private unelected boards govern schools with no term limits and no formal accountability to the communities they serve… The consequences fall hardest on the children least able to seek alternatives: those in poverty, those with disabilities, those in rural communities, and those whose families lack the time or resources to navigate a fragmented marketplace of educational options. Public schools remain the only institutions in American life constitutionally obligated to welcome every child, regardless of circumstance. They are governed by elected boards, funded by public taxes and accountable to the communities they serve…”

The report examines four related threats.

Privatization     Vouchers are one form of school privatization.  The Network for Public Education reminds readers that vouchers trace back to the combination of racism and libertarian ideology. The first voucher schools supported segregation academies in the years immediately following Brown v. Board of Education, and NPE’s report explains that even today, “Study after study has found that school choice programs generally increase segregation,” with vouchers “enabling outright discrimination with public money.” Thirty-four states have at least one voucher program; in total states operate 73 voucher programs, “including some that allow families to double-dip, applying for funding from multiple programs.” Besides their traditional school voucher programs, some states have education savings accounts (“the most damaging and irresponsible of all voucher programs”). Some states have tuition tax credit ‘scholarship’ programs with tax credits for parents and others who contribute to scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) which are tapped by parents to pay for private schools and other educational expenses.  “(S)ome states also give individual tax credits (TTCs) for educational expenses at private schools or homeschools.” Thirty-one states have now also opted in to the federal tuition tax credit program created in the “One Big Beautiful” Bill.

What about the effects of the vast growth of private school vouchers? Because few states set income limits on the families who can qualify for the vouchers, they primarily benefit children from wealthy families. The vouchers “result in the defunding of public schools,” fail to protect the rights of disabled students, often fail to admit LGBTQ students, fail to provide any proof that students are thriving academically, fail require teachers to be certified, and fail to require background checks for teachers. Many states are spending on each voucher a large percentage of what they spend per-pupil on each public school student, and many vouchers are going to children who were always enrolled in the private school where the voucher will reimburse the families who have been paying tuition.

Publicly funded, privately operated charter schools are the second primary form of school privatization. Kentucky’s supreme court recently found that state’s charter school funding unconstitutional, and Nebraska, South Dakota, and Vermont have never had charters. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia all have passed laws that enable the operation of charter schools.  Additionally, “a growing sector operates entirely online—and is largely run by for-profit corporations”—often displaying flagrant “financial opportunism” and “fraud.” And, “Like voucher schools, charter schools are subject to fewer regulations and less oversight than neighborhood public schools. As with voucher schools, this has resulted in significant concerns regarding accountability, accessibility, fiscal responsibility, and academic quality… In 39 states, for-profit companies are permitted to manage nonprofit charter schools. One common arrangement—known as a ‘sweeps’ contract—allows a for-profit management company to handle a school’s day-to-day operations while receiving the bulk of its public funding in return… This practice is especially prevalent in six states—Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and West Virginia….”

Protections for Homeschooled Children     “Homeschooling… is now the fastest-growing education sector,” fed by Education Savings Account vouchers.  However, “even as homeschooling growth has accelerated, laws to protect the homeschooled child have not. Through the relentless pressure exerted by the Homeschool Legal Defense Associations… even the most modest legislation designed to protect homeschooled children from educational or physical neglect and abuse has been opposed with breathtaking ferocity.”  The report details how states fail to require that parents let states know they are homeschooling children; fail to protect students from sexual abuse or violence; and fail to demand some kind of evidence that students are progressing academically.

Conditions that Promote Teaching and Learning     Along with the massive growth of  privatization, “Right-wing political forces have mounted a coordinated campaign against public education—eroding trust in neighborhood schools, creating hostile working conditions for teachers, and withdrawing support from the students who depend on them….  (N)umerous states have enacted laws that make the lives of transgender students significantly more difficult, while not fully protecting… LGBTQ students from bullying and discrimination.  Nearly half of all states still permit corporal punishment in schools.”  Class size has been increased, collective bargaining to ensure adequate teachers’ salaries has been undermined, and other conditions to attract highly qualified teachers have been undermined.

School Funding     NPE declares: “Research has firmly established a positive correlation between per-pupil (public school) spending and student learning.”  “This report tells a clear and troubling story.  Across the country, statehouses are making deliberate choices—choices that defund neighborhood schools, strip teachers of dignity and professional standing, leave vulnerable children without protection, and redirect billions of public dollars to private alternatives that are too often beyond public control… They are the predictable results of an ideological campaign decades in the making, whose architects have been candid about their ultimate goal: the elimination of public education as Americans have known it… States that most aggressively expand vouchers and charter schools are the same states that underfund their public schools, underpay their teachers, and provide the weakest protections for students… States with the most expansive ESA programs have produced the most egregious fraud… States that strip teachers of collective bargaining rights are the same states with the lowest teacher attractiveness ratings…the overlap is not coincidental.  Privatization and disinvestment are two sides of the same coin.”

The report grades each of the states overall for their protection of the public schools.”Seventeen states earned an F for their lack of support of public schools, students and educators while embracing privatization.” A second privatization grade identifies the states where schooling has been most damaged by privatization.  In both categories, Florida earns the lowest “F” grade, while Arizona’s grade is almost as bad.

NPE’s new report traces the impact of today’s national wave of school privation and the overall impact on our nation’s largest institution—a fifty-state system of public education. It cannot trace the convoluted history of any one state’s legislative and sometimes legal battle around school finance. It cannot examine the specific politics in any particular state that have contributed to the spread of today’s wave of privatization—of the role of gerrymandering, of particular regional funders of  state legislators’ political campaigns or the lobbyists who surround the statehouse. And it cannot examine the role of disparities caused by racial and economic injustice any particular state’s school funding.

The fact that such a report cannot possibly explore state-by-state detail, however, does not reduce the report’s significance. The Network for Public Education accomplishes an urgently important goal: identifying a national wave of educational injustice that has reached crisis proportions.  NPE concludes:

“Public schools are not merely institutions that deliver academic instruction. They are the places where children of every background, ability, faith, language, and circumstance are welcomed—not as paying customers, but as members of a community with an equal right to learn. They are governed by publicly elected boards, funded by public taxes, and accountable to the public in ways that no charter management company, no ESA vendor, and no private religious school is required to be… When public schools are weakened—through funding cuts, through the diversion of students and dollars, through the erosion of the teaching profession—the consequences fall hardest on the children least able to seek alternatives…  For those left behind in underfunded, understaffed public schools… (there) is no choice at all.”

Peter Greene was a teacher for 39 years. Since he retired, he has become the most prolific blogger ever, ever, ever, patiently exposing how things work and why the current privatization movement can’t replace public schools. Privatization is promoted by the rich under the guise of helping the poor, but it always ends up benfitting the haves and leaving the poor even worse off.

Privatization advocates are always stuck with the fact that the founders of public education were never on their side. Horace Mann, Henry Barnard, and Catherine Beecher we re well aware that some wealthy families sent their children to private schools and would continue to do so, but they saw the public school as a hallmark of a democratic society, one in which the banker’s son learned alongside the laborer’s son.

So the privatizers can’t claim that they are returning to the original goals of the founders. In fact, they are justifying the inequities that the founders sought to overcome.

In a recent post, Greene reviewed the fundamental problem with school choice.

He writes:

There has always been an obstacle to public education in this country. It’s real, its effects are punishing and far-reaching, and school choice doesn’t provide the slightest solution.
Over at the Fordham Institute blog, Jessica Poiner is recycling an old reformster falsehood that is baloney wrapped around a kernel of truth. “Traditional public schools aren’t open to everyone,” she declares. The “So there!” is mostly silent.


Poiner spins the pro-public ed statement into a “falsehood” by interpreting it as “All traditional public schools are open to all students,” and she is absolutely correct that such a statement is absolutely false. Her assertion, however, doesn’t really advance the argument because nobody has ever tried to make that argument.

Poiner goes on to make the argument that between different schools and school districts we find considerable difference in quality and resources, and that access to the “better” schools is inequitable because of the American system ties school attendance to buying a house. Economic inequity is bakes into the US public education system; doubly so in areas where redlining (historically explicit or currently implicit). Poiner appears to be super-pissed that Ohio’s voucher program, EdChoice, has been successfully challenged in court by public school districts, suggesting that districts hypocritically trap families so that adults can enjoy the benefits of the public system; students can’t just go to the better schools because their parents didn’t buy a house in the right place.


I don’t know of anyone who denies that some schools are better supported than others (though there’s a whole discussion to be had about how we “know” that East Egg schools are better than West Egg). This points us to one of the most fundamental, long-standing problems of education– how are we going to provide a good (enough) education for Those People’s Children?
There have been a variety of solutions on the table:
1) Guarantee that every single child, no matter where they live, falls within a school district that must provide that child with an education. The use a system of state and federal taxation to even out the disparities between local tax bases.
2) Attach to every family some money and let them search out a school that they’d like to attend, public, private or charter.
3) Do nothing. Let people sort it out on their own. And maybe cut everyone’s school taxes.
Well, 3 is not an actual solution, but it’s the MAGA way. Cut all government support for health care, food and nutrition, and education. Some people will end up on the bottom– sick or ignorant or even dead– but that’s just nature’s way of separating the meritorious from the undeserving, and we should not be interfering with God’s Plan. But we need to acknowledge 3 because it is not only current federal policy, but it can also easily infect solutions 1 and 2.
The trouble with 1 and 2 is that they share a critical problem– both of them require taxpayers with money to help pay the education freight for families with much less money. When that doesn’t happen in the public system, the result is schools without enough resources to fully serve their students. When that doesn’t happen in a choice system, students just don’t get a choice. Which is really the choice supporters’ complaint. After all, we have always had school choice; the choice movement has not been about creating choice, but about getting tax dollars to subsidize it. Well, some of it. For some students.
The obstacles to school choice are not policy or bureaucrats or teachers unions or entrenched adult interests. The main obstacles have always been high cost and discriminatory policies.
Poiner puts it this way:

The bottom line is this: If you’re rich enough to buy or rent a home in a high-performing district, your kid gets to go to an excellent school. The world is your oyster. If, however, you can’t afford to pay your way into one of these districts, then most—if not all—high-performing public schools are closed to you.

She’s not wrong. My problem is that modern taxpayer-funded school choice programs don’t really change that at all. Your voucher dollars aren’t enough to get you into East Egg Academy. Worse, East Egg can reject you for any reason. The public school system promise is that wherever you are, there is a public school that must provide for your education; wherever you live, there is no charter or private school that has to provide for your education.
I posted that last bit on the dead bird app, and Derrell Bradford replied with an alternative reformster view.

Wherever you live there is a public school with the power of compulsory attendance and the ability to tax based on your inability to leave or choose no matter how near or far you are from it.

Bradford leads choice advocacy group 50CAN and works with pretty much every other pro-choice group out there, and he’s about the most civil reformster out there (sort of the anti-DeAngelis). And here he pretty much encapsulates the point of view that views a local public school as a “have to” instead of a “get to,” an infringement on rights rather than a means of exercising them. On this, we disagree.


What I see as a commonality between the two views is the need for more resources. I’ve seen one true school choice program in the country, in tiny Croyden, NH, where the deal was that, lacking a local high school, the district would pay full tuition to any school of a student’s choice.

But I only learned about the program because the local Libertarians were trying to chop its budget.


A choice program that fulfilled the promise of an good education for every child, would A) cost a bunch of money, B) require charter and private schools to stop discriminating against students they wanted to reject and C) require useful measures of “good education.” A public school program that fulfilled its promise would take whatever steps necessary to make sure that every school in every was providing a good job, which would A) cost a bunch of money and B) require useful measures of “good education.”

Both visions are up against the same challenge– people whose approach to education is some version of, “Yeah, education is important, but can’t we do it for a lot less?” And if you let them keep talking, some version of, “I don’t mind educating my own kid, and I welcome government help to do that, but I don’t want to pay taxes to make a nice school for Those Peoples’ Children.” Also, a suggestion that compulsory education is a bad thing.


It has never not been an issue, going back to the days when many folks just didn’t need a fancy education for anything (in 1950, 34.3% of Americans over age 25 had a high school diploma) all the way through to the days when Brown v. Board of Education spurred white taxpayers to bitch and moan about the Communist plan to take their money to educate Those Peoples’ Children all the way up through recent history when states argued that students on the McDonald’s track don’t need courses like algebra. As a culture, we wave vaguely in the direction of the importance of education, but we’d rather not pay for it for Other People (see also: health care, food, families, and children).
There are many many more issues to wrestle with in the larger education debates, but I’m trying to focus on just one point. Economic inequity is manifest in our education system.

Modern choice programs, welded to free market ideology, do not offer a real solution to that inequity, and in many ways promise to make it worse.

The Network for Public Education will hold its annual conference in Conroe, Texas–right outside Houston, on September 26-27.

We have a stellar line-up of speakers, panels, and workshops.

Join me and hundreds of others who fight to protect and improve our public schools.

John Thompson, historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, reports on a discussion between historian Jack Schneider and journalist Jennifer Berkshire about the future of public schools. There is no denying the well-funded effort, supported by the Trump administration, to send public money to nonpublic schools. And yet more than 85% of American children still enroll in public schools.

He writes:

I just watched the annual Education Justice Lecture, “The Dismantling of Public Education and the Future of School.” Education Law Centers’ Executive Director Robert Kim moderated the discussion featuring Jennifer Berkshire and Jack Schneider, “The Dismantling of Public Education and the Future of School.”Jack Schneider explained that we’ve entered a new era where technology-focused, data-driven accountability has created a new value system. It seeks to promote the private good, not public education. To rebuild our public school culture, we must remember our previous value system, which was about the public good for everyone. The decline of community contacts has led to alienation. Consequently, education advocates are “on our heels,” defending the status quo, despite its increased segregation.

Bob Kim urged us to remember public education’s ties to civil rights. And Jennifer Berkshire, who documents the privatizers’ attacks on public education, but who leans towards optimism, replied that the thing she’s most pessimistic about is enforcement of civil rights. Now, inequality is widely seen as the natural reality

Schneider added that without public education, “you don’t have rights, you have options.” And, we need pluralism.

Getting back to her hopefulness, Berkshire described patterns of responses to President Trump’s policies. For instance, many people support Trump’s immigration policies, in general. But, when they see them enforced at schools, they oppose the cruelties they see with their own eyes.

Schneider cited polling and focus groups that compare and contrast the nationalization of politics, as opposed to school politics. Polls show patterns, where many parents are negative about schools nationally, but give high grades for their own school. After all, parents show up for musical, art, and other events that bring neighborhoods together.

Similarly, most say first we must get back to basics but as focus groups talk with each other, they start expanding praise for diverse subject matters; then, they move on to praising inclusivity.

Both Schneider and Berkshire explained how Democrats should learn from their mistakes in promoting schools. They didn’t want to get bogged down describing the bipartisan No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top that inflicted so much harm on public schools. But, they explained, too many are forgetting the backlash against RttT, as well as NCLB.

So, Berkshire started with “our trap,” our assertions that the only path to a better life is through college. And Schneider focused on bringing our opponents back together with neighborhood schools where everyone needs to listen with each other.

But, he warned that rightwingers aren’t the only people who are predicting that we are at the end of the public education era. For instance, there are members of the Obama corporate reform crew who are still trying to get their “band” back together.

We must get back to the culture that saw schooling as a public good, not a Free Market path to economic success, mostly for the elites. We must draw on the power of communication. It is crucial for life in a democracy which is built on communities that band together.

Most people do not live in New York City and many of them probably wonder why anyone does. There are more than 8 million people here of every possible race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, and gender. Often it seems crowded, busy, and hurried. But it’s never boring.

Because the city is so polyglot, we New Yorkers tend to be unusually tolerant. We are accustomed to living with diversity. Trump is an exception to that tolerance, but then he lived in a golden penthouse and didn’t have much to do with his fellow New Yorkers. Now that he has moved to Mar-a-Lago, we don’t have to dream up reasons for his ingrained racism.

I watched the “ticker-tape” parade in honor of the New York Knicks (on television, not in person). Around two million people lined the streets from Battery Park to City Hall, according to the NYPD. It was a world-class celebration, topped only by the unadulterated joy in the streets and neighborhoods on the night of the Knicks’ fifth game, when they overcame a large deficit and won the championship in the closing minute or two. As the New York Times recorded, people were dancing in the streets across the city.

NYC is filled with surprising and delightful moments.

Let me tell you about a recent day. We drove from Brooklyn to lower Manhattan to go book-shopping at the Strand, a four-story building at the corner of Broadway and 12th Street. The Strand is an iconic bookstore, the largest in the city, with some 2.5 million books–new, used, and rare. It was packed with customers, mostly young people of high school and college age. There were four or five cashiers to handle the long lines. It was a beautiful sight to see.

Then we walked to Veselka, a Ukrainian restaurant, a few blocks away and enjoyed borscht, pierogies, stuffed cabbage, and schnitzel. Authentic and delicious.

The week before, we invited a friend to go to an Austrian restaurant–Cafe Katja– on Orchard Street on the Lower East Side. I remember when the Lower East Side was mostly slums. No more. The streets were crowded, again, mostly with young people. We ate a meal whose highlight was white asparagus, flown in from Holland. Wow.

The street is lined with restaurants, boutiques, and artsy shops. While we were eating our lunch, a pick-up band began playing across the street. In a minute, the street was filled with people enjoying the music.

Another night we went to Broadway to see Mariska Hargitay playing solo in “Every Brilliant Thing.” She was wonderful. We love watching her on “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.” As we walked out of the theatre, we crossed Broadway, which was aglow with neon lights and alive with visitors and tourists.

Only in New York!

There’s something about living in this city that is simply joyful. Time and again, we experience that joy and understand why young people in search of adventure will always come to big cities. Despite what you may have heard, NYC is very safe. And the possibility of joy is always around the corner.

The organization called “In the Public Interest” is a valuable source of information on the creeping (or galloping) privatization of public goods and services. Headed by Donald Cohen, ITPI keeps tabs on takeovers by billionaires and equity services of public services that we all need and squeezing a profit out of them.

ITPI reported on the report created by the Network for Public Education to evaluate state support for public schools.

We’ve long argued that increased funding for alternatives to public education usually comes at the expense of public education. While some politicians have insisted that it’s a “yes, and,” not an “either/or” proposition, we’ve known that, since the 1960s, the long game has been to slowly defund public schools while increasing high-stakes consequences through reliance on standardized testing and sanctions against schools and educators to justify further defunding. As schools are increasingly labeled as “failing,”  privatization in the guise of “school choice” becomes the only alternative. 

Now a new, comprehensive study from our friends at the Network for Public Education (NPE), a nonprofit public education advocacy organization, brings the receipts. 

Public Schooling in America: 2026 Report Card studied all 50 states, plus DC, reviewing nearly forty factors across four categories: Privatization, Protections for Homeschooled Students, School Funding, and Conditions for Teaching and Learning.

The study makes a clear case that the more states invest in private education alternatives, the less they invest in public education.

“The data confirm what we have long suspected: privatization and disinvestment go hand in hand,” says Carol Burris, Executive Director of NPE and the report’s author. “These are not states struggling with limited resources. They have made deliberate choices to abandon their public schools while directing billions in public dollars to private alternatives.”

The full report, a must-read for anyone who cares about education in the United States, is available here, or you can start with the executive summary here.

Donald Cohen
Executive Director

There is a heated Democratic primary for Congress in NYC’s District 12.

Micah Lasher vs. Alex Bores.

Vote for Bores.

He has led the way in opposing the use of artificial intelligence in the schools.

Micah Lasher was the NYC Department of Education’s chief lobbyist during the Bloomberg era. Lasher helped get the charter cap lifted repeatedly and making it legal to co-locate charters in public schools for free. 

None of this was good for public schools, which saw charter freeloaders wedged into their buildings and taking away prime space.

Lasher then went on to head the NYC chapter of StudentsFirst, the pro-charter organization founded by Michelle Rhee. 

He is no friend to public schools.

Now, Bloomberg is spending $10M to get him elected to Congress. That explains why there are so many Lasher ads air on local TV.

Meanwhile, Bores has been a leader in the battle to regulate AI, and in the Legislature co-sponsored the RAISE Act, the strongest state bill so far requiring large AI developers to have a safety plan to prevent widespread harm and destruction.  As a result, according to NPR, “super PACs tied to investors in ChatGPT maker OpenAI unleashed a torrent of spending aimed at torpedoing his campaign.”   

 

Tulsi Gabbard recently resigned as director of national intelligence, in charge of nearly a score of intelligence agencies. At her co formation hearing, she answered questions about her ties to a cult leader, and she responded that she was unfairly tarnished because of her Hindu faith. She was duly confirmed.

Jon Swaine of The Washington Post remained curious about her ties to a man of mystery in Hawaii named Chris Butler. Butler was the leader of a breakaway Hare Krishna group, called the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF). Gabbard’s parents had senior posts in Butler’s group.

Swaine interviewed former members of Butler’s group, who told him that “Butler controlled his followers’ major life decisions and demanded total obedience and secrecy.”

In November 2025, Swaine spoke to one of Gabbard’s campaign workers, Rebecca Saltzburg, who assured him that Tulsi took instructions from no one.

Nine months later, Saltzburg called him to say she wanted to talk. She had had a falling-out with SIF, and she decided to talk to Swaine.

She turned over hundreds of emails between Gabbard and someone at SIF who gave her instructions while she was in Congress.

Their content was extraordinary.

Dozens of attached memos appeared to document directives and advice for Gabbard from her time in Congress. Some contained instructions on what legislation she should propose, which policies she should embrace and how she should conduct herself on television. They had an air of authority. A memo about a proposal to partition war-torn Iraq into three states quoted an unnamed person as saying it was “time for TG to come up with this idea…”

Swaine asked Saltzburg about the identity of the person who was telling Gabbard what to say and which policies to support.

When I asked Saltzburg about this, she seemed amused. It was Butler, of course, she said. No one else could speak to Gabbard like that, she added. Saltzburg said the memos were unattributed precisely to mask Butler’s identity if they ever became public.

Saltzburg eventually shared more than 25,000 emails and files to Swaine, showing the relationship between Gabbard and SIF.

A number of emails to Gabbard gave her instructions that she followed precisely.

An Oct. 12, 2015, memo labeled “CNN Wolf Blitzer Talking points (Final)” contained this language about reports that she had been asked by Democratic leadership not to attend a presidential debate: “It’s not a ‘boohoo, I don’t get to go to the party’ situation, Wolf.” I dug up the clip of her appearance that day and found that she had used the line almost verbatim: “The issue here is not about me saying boo-hoo, I’m going to miss the party.”

The limited remarks attributed to Gabbard in the memos appeared to show her enthusiastically embracing the guidance. “TG: That’s perfect, that line right there,” said one transcript labeled “Iraq notes — call.” A line attributed to “TG” in another transcript said, “That’s a great way to put it.”

Here’s another example of Tulsi Gabbard complying with instructions from SIF:

A January 2015 memo documented an unnamed adviser’s proposal to attack John F. Kerry, then secretary of state, for saying violent activity by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda was rooted not in Islam but in “alienation, poverty, thrill seeking and other factors.” If that were true, the adviser said sarcastically, the way to deal with terrorists would be to “give them a trophy, a big hug, increase their self-esteem, give them a good paying job.”

In a Fox News interview later that day, Gabbard repeated the Kerry quote and gave a similar mocking punch line. “If that’s really the cause, then the solution would be give them a trophy, give them a hug, give them a good-paying job,” she said…

The time frame of documents we reviewed meant they could not show whether Gabbard continued receiving guidance after she left Congress and eventually joined the Trump administration. But I found echoes of years-old guidance in her more recent remarks. One phrase in particular stood out.

In 2014, Hoen emailed Gabbard a statement for posting online that said Gabbard made every decision through the prism of “the safety, security, and freedom of the American people.” She repeated that phrase in the first paragraph of her 2024 memoir, and after she was nominated by Trump, Gabbard made it her mantra, using it in her Senate confirmation hearing, her inaugural statement as DNI, her presentation of this year’s annual threat assessment and many other occasions.

On May 20, having received no answers from Gabbard to my questions for two months, I emailed her, her press secretary and her chief of staff. I let them know we planned to proceed with a story about her association with Butler. I again invited Gabbard to address my questions.

Two days later, Fox News reported that Gabbard — whose departure had been rumored for months — would be leaving the position of DNI this month because her husband had been diagnosed with a rare bone cancer. Some commentators observed that she still had a promising political future, maybe even more so because she was not aligned with Trump on the Iran war and other unpopular policies.

Jeff Bezos has done his best to defang the great newspaper he bought. He’s done his best to avoid alienating Trump.

But the newspaper still has some great and fearless reporters.