Archives for category: Accountability

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.”   

 

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

https://share.google/NXK2OD6xIFegOuWoe

By David Reinking and Peter Smagorinsky

Every day we read about people asking, “At what grade level does my child read?” “Is it true that 54% of adults in the U.S. read below a sixth-grade level?” “Have reading scores dropped an entire grade level since the pandemic?”

The assumption behind these questions is test scores are precise indicators of reading ability, like scientific laboratory measurements. But like blood pressure levels — in which there is agreement about what’s being measured — they are variable and open to interpretation. 

Despite the subjectivity and lack of agreement in defining reading, grade level and ability, grade-level reading ability is often mistakenly viewed as determined by a precise, stable test score, one that does not take into account factors such as students’ health and hunger in their testing performance. Not everyone agrees on what is salient at a particular grade level, leading to subjectivity in weighting phonics knowledge, vocabulary, comprehension, the ability to synthesize a theme and recognize an author’s point of view in a given passage, or some combination of such things. 

Standardized tests are typically the basis for establishing grade level. But test scores themselves don’t indicate grade level, which is a creation of an interpreter. That’s why different tests don’t always produce the same grade level. A student who tests at fourth grade in one state may test at the third or fifth grade when moving to another state using a different test. In short, different tests or standards can produce different grade levels.

David Reinking is a retired professor at Clemson and the University of Georgia. He is an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Reading Research Quarterly and Journal of Literacy Research. (Courtesy)

David Reinking is a retired professor at Clemson and the University of Georgia. He is an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Reading Research Quarterly and Journal of Literacy Research. (Courtesy)

The National Assessment of Educational Progress calls itself “the nation’s report card” even to the point of using the phrase on its website and then having it repeated as if it is an established fact. It is often invoked in commentaries on grade levels. But it wasn’t designed for that purpose. NAEP itself states that “NAEP Proficient achievement level does not represent grade level proficiency as determined by other assessment standards (e.g., state or district assessments). NAEP achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted and used with caution.”

But that hasn’t stopped many policy makers and journalists from trying to connect a NAEP test score to a grade level. Giving in to political pressure and rejecting recommendations from authorities in developing tests, in 1990 NAEP officials did introduce four tiers of reading achievement: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient and Advanced. These levels were established solely using subjective judgment about what’s expected of children tested at a specific grade level.

Peter Smagorinsky is a retired professor at UGA, an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Research in the Teaching of English. (Courtesy)

Peter Smagorinsky is a retired professor at UGA, an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Research in the Teaching of English. (Courtesy)

Then, they set equally subjective cut scores to establish boundaries between these four levels. States often use a parallel model for their own tests. In Virginia, student performance is measured on a 0–600 scale, with proficiency set at 400-499 and advanced at 500 or above. It’s hard to imagine that a meaningful difference exists between a student scoring 499 (proficient) and 500 (advanced).

Much confusion is also centered in interpreting whether “basic” is acceptably normal or if it is reasonable to expect all students to be “proficient.” Many commentators, some of whom have a vested interest in arguing that there is a reading crisis, argue the latter. Some have promoted the false idea that “proficient” is grade-level reading, which it absolutely is not. Then, they wrongly argue that two-thirds of American students are reading below grade level by counting “basic” scores as below grade level.

Another way to illustrate the problem is to simply rename NAEP’s subjective categories as “below average,” “average,” “above average” and “far above average.” Then, approximately 60% of students are reading at or above an average score, and only 40% (instead of the usually expected 50%) of students are below average. Presto, much of the reading crisis disappears. As further evidence against a crisis, there has been relatively little variation in NAEP reading scores since 1992, even if an upward trend began retreating around 2015 with many plausible but unconfirmed explanations.

A number of educators have debunked the conclusions of NAEP misinterpreters. Yet, the dogged belief persists that everything can be reduced to subjective interpretations of test scores divided into hierarchical categories that can be falsely, if conveniently, converted to grade levels. 

We are concerned whenever we encounter all-too-common misinformation about grade-level reading ability. When misinformation becomes disinformation offered by those who use grade-level reading ability to advance political, polemical or ideological agendas, we become concerned about how faith in test scores lends them to manipulation and deception to help create the crisis that critics have historically claimed is engulfing schools, only to be saved by their favorite solutions. 


David Reinking is a retired professor at Clemson and the University of Georgia, an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Reading Research Quarterly and Journal of Literacy Research. Peter Smagorinsky is a retired professor at UGA, an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Research in the Teaching of English.

Blogger G.F. Brandenburg is upset about Trump’s disastrous deal with Iran. All the sanctions on this rogue state will be lifted, and Iran agreed to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for only 60 days. After 60 days, Iran and Oman will decide about the management of that vital body of water, through which moves about 20% of the world’s oil.

Brandenburg calculates how much money these two nations will haul in if they require ships to pay a toll. Annually, we are talking of revenues worth billions.

Richard Haas is a foreign policy expert. For years, he was president of the Counculmon Foreign Relations from 2003 to 2023. Before that, he was director of policy planning for the U.S. State Department.

He titled his post “Defeat.”

He wrote:

Welcome to Home & Away. The big news again is the Iran War, as we now have the memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreed to and signed by the United States and Iran. Here are the main provisions:

— The two governments have committed to an immediate and permanent ceasefire, including Lebanon.

— The two agree not to interfere in each other’s internal affairs.

— The two will seek to negotiate a final deal within 60 days, but this can be extended if need be, as is virtually certain to be the case.

— The Strait of Hormuz will reopen as the United States has pledged to end its blockade and Iran has agreed to allow the resumption of shipping.

— The Iranian government has (again) agreed not to procure or develop nuclear weapons. More significantly, it has agreed to maintain the nuclear status quo while all nuclear-related issues are being negotiated. Nothing in the MOU prejudices, one way or the other, the future status of the stock of enriched uranium in Iran, new enrichment-related activities, or inspections.

— Financial assets will flow to Iran as all economic sanctions are eased and frozen assets are released. A $300 billion reconstruction fund will be established for Iran.

— Nothing is mentioned about Iranian conventional military forces (including missiles and drones) or support for proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

Obviously, much remains to be negotiated (particularly in the nuclear realm) and implemented when it comes to the Strait and just about everything else. We will see whether the end of the war is temporary or permanent, as declared.

What is clear, though, is that the emerging deal constitutes a massive victory for Iran, or, more precisely, for its government. The regime will receive a financial windfall that will strengthen its hold on the country and help it rearm itself and its proxies. In just two months, it can impose tolls and quite possibly other controls affecting the use of the Strait of Hormuz.

The same cannot be said about Iran’s people, who are among the war’s principal losers. The regime is not just more radical; it now has the prestige of having successfully stood up to the Great Satan. As already noted, it will be bailed out financially. Plus, the United States has pledged not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs, which is a 180-degree reversal of its initial stance of seeking regime change. There is no reason to expect repression to ease, although at some point Iran’s leaders will have to confront their questionable priorities and policies that have driven the country to economic ruin.

Israel is another big loser in the war, as its relationship with the United States, already strained by Gaza, has deteriorated sharply. (Prime Minister Netanyahu’s relationship with Trump has deteriorated as well.) Israel’s main concerns (Iran’s missiles and aid to proxies) are unaffected by the MOU. It remains to be seen whether Israel’s nuclear-related concerns are met (safe to say they will not be met in full, as at most there will be a JCPOA-like ceiling placed on Iran’s nuclear program, not its elimination). Iran’s pledge not to procure or develop nuclear weapons is simply a statement of intentions that has no effect on capabilities. Worse yet for Israel, it finds itself under increased pressure to pull back in Lebanon and may experience the same vis-à-vis Gaza – and it is far from clear that the Trump administration won’t add to the pressure.

The Arab countries of the region also come out worse off, as they will have to contend with an emboldened, strengthened, and more radical Iran, one with newfound power derived from its demonstrated willingness and ability to interfere with the Strait of Hormuz and attack its neighbors. The war also showed they will have to deal with Iran largely on their own, as neither the United States nor Israel can protect them. I expect several will decide the better part of valor is to reach an accommodation with Iran.

The result reinforces the view (which I have held since before the war was launched) that this war was a strategic error of the first magnitude. There was no imminent threat that justified the decision to initiate the war, and there were better options (above all, diplomacy and increased sanctions) available to pursue U.S. aims. The result was a misguided war of choice, predicated on flawed assumptions about Iran held by officials with little expertise or experience, a war that predictably turned out badly for the United States and its partners in the region and beyond.

The United States has paid a great deal to return the Strait of Hormuz to its previous status – and what will result will fall short of that. Nuclear arrangements remain up in the air, but it is certain Iran will remain active in that domain (especially given the leverage this war has given the regime). Inspections will be as critical as they are likely to be challenging. The war introduced new strains into U.S. ties with regional partners and allies, in the process isolating the United States more than Iran. Respect for the United States, both for its judgment and competence, is much diminished.

Bret Stephens is right to term the war a debacle. But he and others are wrong in suggesting that if only the president had used more military force (including ground troops) for longer the result would have been different. Actually, it would have been different, but not for the better. Odds are we would have found ourselves caught in a quagmire of our own making, losing many more troops and churning through far more equipment in the process.

The commitment might well have taken years to play out, and even then, there would have been no guarantee of success given the tens of millions of Iranians who still support this regime and the many more who might have rallied to the regime against the foreign occupier. It would have created a strategic distraction and a political and economic nightmare. The best and perhaps only good thing to say about the deal just reached with Iran is that the United States cut its losses.

John Oliver took a piercing look at Ron DeSantis’s takeover of New College in Sarasota.

When DeSantis first became governor of Florida, a legislator told him about this little bed of radicalism, and DeSantis admitted that he had never heard of it. But then he realized that attacking it and remodeling it would help build his resume for his bid for the Presidency.

New College was, like Hampshire College, a progressive institution where there were no grades and students could design their own courses. It attracted free-thinking students and professors, and this was intolerable to people like DeSantis. The fact that it was funded by the state made it vulnerable to political interference.

DeSantis decided that New College’s inclusion of gender studies and its welcoming of LGBT students was, in fact, a pretext for indoctrinating students into a Communist, socialist, anti-American way of thinking.

New College was woke, and the governor had to take control. He ousted the president and the board of trustees and replaced them with rightwing allies and political buddies. The new president of New College had no experience in higher education but had been Republican Speaker of the House in Florida.

One new board member, Chris Rufo, was an anti-woke crusader who wanted to turn New College into a model for how to take control of progressive colleges and turn them into rightwing colleges.

It’s a harrowing story. Set aside some time and watch it. The best part might be the new Dean at comedy night telling a story about exposing himself to a 7-year-old girl. He thought it was funny.

The Network for Public Education, which I co-founded with science teacher Anthony Cody in 2012-2013, supports the improvement of public schools and opposes privatization of public funding for schooling. Nearly 90% of children in the U.S. are enrolled in public schools. Their schools should be staffed by qualified teachers and fully funded. NPE works with state organizations that share our commitment to the principle: Public funds for public schools.

The following report was produced by NPE Executive Director Carol Burris and staff. Burris retired as a career teacher and award-winning high school principal.

NEW REPORT GIVES 17 STATES FAILING GRADES FOR ABANDONING PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Network for Public Education’s Most Comprehensive Report Card Finds Privatization and Disinvestment Go Hand in Hand

New York, New York

The Network for Public Education (NPE) released Public Schooling in America: Measuring Each State’s Commitment to Public Schools (2026), an expansive state-by-state assessment of support for public education. The report evaluates all 50 states and the District of Columbia across four categories: Privatization, Protections for Homeschooled Students, School Funding, and Conditions for Teaching and Learning. It documents a troubling national pattern: the statehouses most aggressively redirecting public money toward private alternatives are the most neglectful of their public schools, teachers, and students. NPE’s analysis found a strong, statistically significant negative relationship between privatization and policies that support public schools (p < 0.0001).

Only two states — Nebraska and Vermont — earned an A. Seventeen states received an F, failing to meet even 40% of the points allocated across NPE’s 39 standards. Florida ranked last, scoring 14 out of 102 possible points, with Arizona close behind. “The data confirm what we have long suspected: privatization and disinvestment go hand in hand,” said 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 report draws on original research in addition to research from other organizations — including the Education Law Center, the Learning Policy Institute, and EdChoice — to deliver a comprehensive assessment of public education and privatization across 39 distinct factors. These include teacher-to-student ratios, teacher satisfaction, school funding levels, and the degree to which laws governing vouchers, charter schools, and homeschools protect both taxpayers and students.

Public Schooling in America also provides a roadmap for reform, showing policymakers and advocates exactly where laws and policies must change to better serve students and rein in the serious, well-documented problems created by privatized alternatives.

“Public schools are the only institutions in American life obligated to welcome every child, regardless of circumstance,” NPE President Diane Ravitch added. “They build community and democracy. They are as American as apple pie.”

The full report is available here

About the Network for Public Education

The Network for Public Education is a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to protecting, preserving, and strengthening public schools for every child in America.

No President in our history has ever sued the federal government that he leads. But Donald Trump sued the IRS for $10 billion because an IRS contractor released his tax returns during his first term in office. The public and the media learned that in some years, he paid no taxes and in one year, his tax payment was a total of $750.

He was insulted and “damaged” by the leak of his tax returns, but every other president since Richard Nixon in 1973 has released his tax returns (Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford, released a summary of his returns).

Right before the case went to trial, Trump and Todd Blanche, the acting U.S. Attorney General, reached a deal and withdrew the lawsuit. Even before the trial got started, Federal Judge Kathlyn Williams, who would hear the case, wondered whether there were any real adversaries or was Trump suing himself.

Although other presidents released their tax returns to show they had no conflicts of interest, Trump broke this tradition. During his first term in office, he repeatedly said that he would release his returns when the IRS finished auditing them. A decade later, his taxes were never released. This must be the longest audit in history. By now, the public understands that he will never release his tax returns.

The deal was that Trump would “settle” for the establishment of a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund to pay to people who claimed to have been wrongly prosecuted by the Justice Department. Trump would chair the board of the fund and have the power to remove other board members. In short, Trump would control a slush fund for his allies, not only the insurrectionists of January 6, 2021, but other friends such Mike Lindell (the My Pillow Guy), Roger Stone, John Eastman, Rudy Guiliani, and others who joined Trump in claiming that the 2020 was “rigged.” Even rioters who had struck and injured police officers would be eligible.

In a separate agreement, Blanche signed a document declaring that the IRS would not audit Trump nor members of his family nor his companies. Presently, Trump owes the IRS over $100 million because of a disputed deduction. That debt would go away. What was unclear in this agreement was whether this audit exemption applied not only to the past and present but also the future.

The uproar against this deal was bipartisan. Republican members of Congress spoke out against the slush fund. During the upcoming election, they could not defend federal payouts to insurrectionists, especially those who attacked law officers.

At hearings, Todd Blanche said the slush fund was dead (insurrectionists can still sue the Justice Department and win compensation). Trump has never said so.

But one part of the deal was left intact: the agreement that Trump and family would not be audited by the IRS.

This deal outrages me. Why should the Trump family and their business ventures be shielded from tax audits? Why not me? Why not you? Why not everyone who pays taxes?

“Maybe he doesn’t want the American people … to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes…”

Trump has a long and well-documented history of tax avoidance.

In the first presidential debate of 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Trump–at Hofstra University on September 16, 2026–Clinton said:

Trump immediately replied:

“That makes me smart.”  

He added that if he had paid more taxes, the money would have been “squandered” by the government.

I remember thinking when he said that, “If everyone dodged their taxes or used every loophole, how would the U.S. fund its military or pay for Medicare or function in any way?”

This is not a man who should be exempt from IRS audits, nor should Eric, Don Jr. or the rest of the rapacious family and their corporate entities.

When Todd Blanche testified to Congress in defense of the agreement to protect the Trump family from IRS audits, Democrats expressed outrage:

Senator Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon said:

“It’s the ultimate case of an ultrawealthy individual living under one set of rules while everybody else lives under another,” Wyden said, adding about Trump: “I take it as an admission of his own guilt when it comes to tax cheating.”

Ranking Member Sen. Ron Wyden speaks during a hearing with Internal Revenue Service Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisignano on April 15, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Rep. Ron Wyden (D), Oregon

Bessent “owes the committee an explanation of what the Treasury knows about the dirty settlement,” noting the Treasury Department’s role as both “defendant and a negotiator” in Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS.

“This is an abuse of the IRS that goes way beyond anything that I have any familiarity with…

“Trump has set the new high water mark for public corruption… everybody in 🇺🇸 is subject to IRS audit except the Trumps. I take it as an admission of his own guilt when it comes to tax cheating. Trumps have stuffed every dollar they can into their pockets.”

A tweet: Why does a president need immunity from committing TAX FRAUD unless he is and has been committing tax fraud?

I hope that someone is planning to take legal action. This deal is unethical, dishonest, and just plain wrong.

But lawyer Elie Honig wrote that Trump is likely to keep his audit exemption because no one is injured by his deal and no one has standing to sue.

Scott Maxwell is a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. In this column, he argues that voucher schools in Florida should not be allowed to dodge accountability. And, he explains, they are completely unaccountable. The state Constitution requires that the state provide high-quality education, which voucher schools do not. He neglects to notice that the state Constitution states that no public money should go to religious schools. Not a penny, but most vouchers go to religious schools.

What is more, the voters of Florida rejected an effort to strip that language from the state Vonstitution in 2012.

Scott Maxwell wrote:

Teachers and parents have filed a landmark lawsuit challenging the legality of Florida’s billion-dollar school voucher system

The argument at the heart of their suit is that Florida’s constitution requires tax dollars be spent on “high-quality” education. Yet Florida’s voucher system is a black-hole of accountability, sometimes paying for kids to go to “schools” that are total disasters — where teachers lack degrees, inflate grades and use curriculum that is rubbish.

I’m not convinced the teachers and parents will win this lawsuit. In fact, I doubt they will. Similar challenges have been unsuccessful. And Gov. Ron DeSantis has done a pretty thorough job of stacking the courts with political allies, especially at the appellate level.

But I know for a fact the teachers and parents have a point. In fact, It’s inarguable. This newspaper has spent nearly a decade documenting voucher schools that failed children.

Often, the parents themselves were shocked and outraged to learn that schools were failing their kids and that there was little to no accountability.

The Sentinel’s multi-year “Schools Without Rules” investigation into voucher (or “scholarship”) schools found some schools employed teachers that lacked any teaching credentials or college degrees.

Some were such financial disasters, they shut down in the middle of the year, stranding families. (One in Orlando was evicted from a commercial complex where a neighboring tenant was “Drug Tests R Us.”)

Some refused to serve children with disabilities, whether it was autism or reliance on a wheelchair. Even more refused to teach children who are gay or had gay parents. These were schools eager for the public money but unwilling to serve all the public. None of this was discreet. Some had written policies saying that they wouldn’t serve children with Down’s syndrome or who uttered the sentence: “I am gay.”

Some schools taught junk science and bogus history, suggesting that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together and downplaying slavery and segregation.

And at some schools, parents were so appalled at what they found that they reported to the state things like “Cleaning lady substituting for teacher” and “I don’t see any evidence of academics.”

If you think any of that represents “high quality” education, you might also believe the mini tacos at 7-Eleven are five-star dining.

Many private schools that accept vouchers do stellar jobs and fill niche needs that public schools have historically struggled to meet. But too many taxpayer-funded schools are total trainwrecks. And the reason is that Florida has very few standards for voucher schools.

That is, in fact, the crux of the lawsuit, which lists about 20 different things that public schools are required to do by state law, but which all voucher schools are not.

Like providing certain levels of school safety staffing and having threat-management plans in place. Offering vetted curriculum and providing transportation. Hiring qualified teachers. And publicly posting test scores from state assessments that show whether students are actually learning anything. Public schools must do all of that.

The argument from choice-without-standards supporters is that parents should be able to choose any education they want for their kids without exception.

There are two problems with that argument.
One is that no other government-funded voucher program works that way — and for good reason. We don’t let recipients of food vouchers use them on Twinkies and Mountain Dew. This is public money meant to provide nutritional sustenance. So there are guidelines. The same way there is for Medicaid and Medicare. You don’t get to spent public money that’s meant to fulfill a public purpose on anything you like just because you invoke cries of “freedom” or “choice.”

The other problem is that using this money to provide “high quality” education isn’t optional. It’s part of the Florida Constitution — a point the lawsuit addresses when it says: “… choice does not change the Constitution. When public funds are used to educate a child, that child is entitled to the same level of educational opportunities, the same quality standards, and the same basic protections.”

You can certainly make the argument that some public schools have failed some students. Do you know how we know that? Because these schools were required by law to disclose their test scores, standards, hiring practices and curriculum.
In fact, newspapers in Florida were often the ones that exposed problems at public schools.

And most anytime we did, public officials would spring to action and agree reform was needed.
Yet most every time we’ve exposed problems in taxpayer-funded voucher schools, state lawmakers leaders looked the other way.
The most pathetic part of all this is that it’s easily fixable.

Florida could still offer “choice,” but also demand that any schools that receive public money meet basic standards. Hire qualified teachers. Post the results of nationally-normed standardized test scores and graduation rates. And ban discrimination.

“To me, this is just common sense,” said Stephanie Vanos, an Orange County School Board member who also happens to be an Orlando mom and joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff in that capacity. “I’m not saying they need the thousands of pages of rules that apply to us, but we need a common-sense set of rules that should apply to everybody.”

She is, of course, right. Schools that do good jobs shouldn’t be afraid of accountability and transparency. Most aren’t.

In fact, ask yourself these basic questions:
Why shouldn’t parents and students be guaranteed qualified teachers?

Why shouldn’t taxpayers be able to see what kind of test scores are being produced at all the schools they’re funding?

And why shouldn’t taxpayers be assured that the money they’re spending is actually providing “quality” education, as the Constitution requires?
Better yet, ask those who defend the status quo.

The New York Times reported that doctors and hospitals are reporting a surge in diseases that had been eliminated by vaccines, like whooping cough. As the number of people who decline vaccinations increases, the diseases that would have protected them are increasing in number.

Thanks, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for putting the lives of many people at risk!

Doctors around the country say they are seeing more cases of serious, sometimes life-threatening illnesses that vaccines have long kept at bay, including whooping cough and bacterial infections that can cause pneumonia or meningitis.

The concern among doctors comes on the heels of a resurgence of measles nationwide, fueled by distrust in vaccines that grew during the Covid-19 pandemic, and that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and President Trump have amplified. Public health experts have long seen measles as a harbinger: Because it is so exceptionally contagious, it can be the first disease to spike as vaccination rates broadly decline, and a sign of more to come.

For some of these diseases, national data show clear and substantial increases in recent years; for others, the increases are small, or there are anecdotal indications from doctors on the ground of increases that public statistics don’t currently confirm.

While most children recover, these diseases aren’t benign. Many children endure extended hospitalizations. Some infections can be fatal.

Dr. Meghan Hofto, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, is one of the doctors who said she is seeing more illnesses that she used to encounter only rarely. This year, she and her colleagues have treated more children than usual with persistent diarrhea. A child with a run-of-the-mill stomach virus might need a day or so of IV fluids, but these patients were being hospitalized for three or four days.

The culprit: Rotavirus, which once caused tens of thousands of hospitalizations a year in the United States but was largely swept away by vaccines introduced 20 years ago. These vaccines were so effective that Dr. Hofto could recall treating only four or five children with rotavirus in the past decade. Now, she said she had treated about that many already this year, and none of them were vaccinated.

Dr. Jessica Kirk, a pediatric hospitalist in Fairhope, Ala., recently treated an unvaccinated toddler who was hospitalized with pneumonia from two simultaneous infections, Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Routine childhood vaccines can protect against both S. pneumoniae and a common form of H. influenzae, but vaccinations against both illnesses have declined in recent years.

The child that Dr. Kirk treated for both infections needed antibiotics and oxygen to get through the illness.

Some of these conditions can lead to serious complications. H. influenzae and S. pneumoniae infections can cause sepsis, meningitis and pneumonia. Dr. Hofto said she had treated 4- to 6-week-old infants with whooping cough, or pertussis, who seemed fine at times but then stopped breathing after a coughing fit. “It’s hard to know when they’re safe to go home,” she said.

Many children with whooping cough don’t have anti-vaccine parents, she said. They are just too young to have been vaccinated yet, and the disease has been circulating more in recent years as overall vaccination rates have declined. There were more than 28,000 cases reported last year, compared with around 7,000 in 2023.

Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in an emailed statement, “We reject the premise that providing Americans with transparent information about the benefits and risks of medical products undermines public health.”

Even when the worst doesn’t happen, emergency room doctors are having to subject some unvaccinated children with high fevers to more invasive testing, including spinal taps, to rule out life-threatening infections that vaccinated children are protected from. Infections like H. influenzae and S. pneumoniae can be hard to recognize because they can resemble less serious illnesses before rapidly leading to complications. And because near-universal vaccination prevented them for so long, many doctors have little experience diagnosing them.

We continue to see stories about American military attacks on small boats in the Caribbean or the Pacific. We read that our planes destroyed a boat carrying drugs and drug dealers. How do we know whether the boat was carrying drugs? No evidence is presented. How do we know that the men killed were drug dealers, not fishermen? We don’t. We have to trust Pete Hegseth.

Dominic Preziosi, editor of Commonweal, says that without evidence, the attacks on small craft might be “simply murder.” Commonweal is a liberal Catholic journal that is thoughtful and definitely worth reading.

He writes:

Now that his appeals have been denied, former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte faces trial for crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court. Duterte is charged with killing alleged drug addicts and dealers during his terms as mayor of Davao City and as president from 2016 to 2022—about six thousand people, though some estimates put the total closer to thirty thousand. Duterte dispatched police death squads to carry out his campaign of extrajudicial executions, which was condemned at the time by rights groups around the world and by Catholic leaders in the Philippines, who called it a “reign of terror.” Duterte once bragged of having stabbed someone to death, and while president said he would “be happy to slaughter” three million drug addicts in the country if he could.

Donald Trump was an early admirer of Duterte. In April 2017, three months into his first term, Trump called Duterte to praise him for his murderous crackdown. “I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job on the drug problem,” he enthused. “Many countries have the problem, we have a problem, but what a great job you are doing.” Just a month before that, the U.S. State Department had criticized Duterte in its annual human-rights report, citing “apparent governmental disregard for human rights and due process.”

There are unmistakable echoes of Duterte’s “unbelievable job” in the Trump administration’s campaign of boat strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, which was launched last September under the pretext of protecting the “American homeland” from drug cartels and so-called narcoterrorists. In fifty-eight attacks by drone and aircraft—the most recent on May 26—nearly two hundred people have been killed. In at least one instance, U.S. forces returned to kill survivors clinging to the wreckage of a vessel already struck. The U.S. military has also used aircraft painted like a civilian plane to carry out some of the attacks. Both of these would qualify as war crimes. Wary of being linked to human-rights violations, allies like Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands have stopped sharing intelligence that they think could be misused by the United States to target vessels. Shortly after the attacks began, Arizona senator Mark Kelly and several other Democratic lawmakers—all of whom served in the military or intelligence community—issued a joint statement reminding service members that they do not have to obey illegal orders. 

In none of the boat strikes has the military seized drugs or produced evidence that those it killed were involved in the drug trade. Many of the victims appear to have been fishermen or other laborers. This hasn’t stopped Trump from demonizing those killed or members of his administration from releasing celebratory video clips of vessels being destroyed from high above. Vice President J. D. Vance has cracked that he “wouldn’t go fishing right now in that part of the world.” In defending the campaign, called “Operation Southern Spear,” Hegseth uses bizarre theocratic rhetoric, warning that “Christian nations, under God” cannot be led astray by “radical narco-communists.” 

Trump, meanwhile, spouts nonsense about the targeting program’s effectiveness. He has claimed that the strikes have prevented twenty-five thousand cocaine-related deaths in one year, though experts say that there have not been that many such deaths over the past fifty years in total. He has baselessly declared that “98.2% of Drugs coming into the U.S. by Ocean or Sea have STOPPED!” since the killing spree began. He has failed (repeatedly) to distinguish between cocaine and fentanyl—which has taken a deadly toll on Americans, but which enters the country via land routes and is not transported by sea. Meanwhile, traditional interdiction—stopping suspicious vessels, confiscating drugs, arresting traffickers, all while refraining from indiscriminate killing—continues to be the most effective means of disrupting shipments

But in many ways that is all beside the point. The strikes are wrong on legal, ethical, and moral grounds. The administration’s contention that the United States is at war with “narcoterrorists”—an argument that builds on the spurious reasoning of the Bush administration to justify its use of torture in the “global war on terror”—doesn’t permit it to launch lethal attacks on civilians. Even John Yoo, the former Bush official who devised that reasoning, has qualms about the Trump administration’s rationale for killing people in international waters. “Never before in the country’s history has the government asserted this type [of] power,” Seton Hall law school professor Jonathan Hafetz told The Guardian. “This is a clear example of unlawful killing by the United States.” 

The Pentagon’s internal watchdog recently announced it will investigate the boat strikes, but that it will only evaluate “the joint process for targeted vessels”—how the military conducts the attacks, leaving aside the matter of their legality. While Duterte may have to answer for his crimes, no American official involved in killing civilians at sea—from Trump and Hegseth on down—will face trial in an international court, since the United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. The families of two Trinidadian fishermen killed by the United States have filed suit against the administration in a Massachusetts court, but it’s hard to know how their case will fare given that foreign nationals are not protected by federal law. Yet their charge seems beyond dispute: “[The attacks] were simply murder, ordered at the highest levels of government and obeyed by military officers in the chain of command.” 

Dominic Preziosi is Commonweal’s editor.