Ooops! State Commissioner Betty Rosa Did NOT write this great statement. It was written by a top deputy in her office named Jim Baldwin. She called to let me know after it was posted.
She sent the letter to me, and I assumed that she wrote it because she did not mention anyone else. I asked for her permission to post it, and she said yes. It never occurred to me that she was not the author. She does endorse the point of view!
Here is the original post:
Dr. Betty Rosa has a long career in education as a teacher, principal, District Supervisor, Chair of the New State Regents and now the New York Commissioner of Education, selected by the Regents. She believes strongly that all schools should meet state standards, including the politically powerful yeshivas run by ultra-Orthodox Jews. They are politically powerful because they vote as a bloc. Presently they are loyal to Trump because of his commitment to giving taxpayer dollars to religious schools. At the state level, the yeshivas want to be free of the state requirement that they teach their students in English.
The Hasidic community was eager to persuade legislators to lower the standards for their schools. The State Education Department demanded that they comply with state law and provide a “substantially equivalent” education to their students. They prefer to teach in Hebrew or Yiddish or both. Yesterday the New York Times reported that Hochul was going along with the Hasidim. Terrible! She wants to run again, and she wants their support in 2026.
Jim Baldwin, who is a deputy to State Commissioner of Education Dr. Betty Rosa, wrote the following letter to Governor Hochul:
Governor Hochul – you and legislative leaders have sold out children attending private schools in a most cynical manner- to curry favor with religious sects for purely political reasons.
The deficiencies in these schools are well documented by the State Education Department and in the media – most notably the New York Times. I know you are well aware of those findings.
As a former superintendent of schools and college president I encountered the deficiencies in yeshiva education first hand as we sought to help orthodox students achieve college degrees following “education” at a variety of yeshivas and seminaries. The yeshiva graduates were often illiterate, and could not demonstrate basic knowledge and skills let alone do college level studies. How could you allow this to continue?
Your failure to protect these children demonstrates lack of leadership and unwillingness to defend the basic rights of children to standards based educational opportunities that prepare them for life.
And then you have the audacity to pretend what you’ve done is just another option when it is a sham that will allow educational neglect to continue.
I have a long history of public service and educational leadership that put the interests of students first.
As a lifelong activist Democrat I am disgusted that you would not demonstrate principled leadership to stop this travesty.
Your attempt to appease the religious leaders who threaten your electoral success will almost certainly fail – and in the process you have alienated a significant number of us who would otherwise have voted for you once again.
Heather Cox Richardson recounts the important exchanges between the new Pope, Leo XIV, and JD Vance, on the subject of immigrants. Vance, a convert to Catholicism, described Catholic doctrine and was quickly rebuffed at the time both by Pope Francis and by the future Pope. So, JD Vance has the dubious distinction of being rebuffed by two Popes!
Today, on the second day of the papal conclave, the cardinal electors—133 members of the College of Cardinals who were under the age of 80 when Pope Francis died on April 21—elected a new pope. They chose 69-year-old Cardinal Robert Prevost, who was born in Chicago, thus making him the first pope chosen from the United States. But he spent much of his ministry in Peru and became a citizen of Peru in 2015, making him the first pope from Peru, as well.
New popes choose a papal name to signify the direction of their papacy, and Prevost has chosen to be known as Pope Leo XIV. This is an important nod to Pope Leo XIII, who led the church from 1878 to 1903 and was the father of modern Catholic social teaching. He called for the church to address social and economic issues, and emphasized the dignity of individuals, the common good, community, and taking care of marginalized individuals.
In the midst of the Gilded Age, Leo XIII defended the rights of workers and said that the church had not just the duty to speak about justice and fairness, but also the responsibility to make sure that such equities were accomplished. In his famous 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, translated as “Of New Things,” Leo XIII rejected both socialism and unregulated capitalism, and called for the state to protect the rights of individuals.
Prevost’s choice of the name Leo invokes the principles of both Leo XIII and his predecessor, Pope Francis. In his own lifetime he has aligned himself with many of Francis’s social reforms, and his election appears to be a rejection of hard-line right-wing Catholics in the U.S. and elsewhere who have used their religion to support far-right politics.
In the U.S., Vice-President J.D. Vance is one of those hard-line right-wing Catholics. Shortly after taking office in January, Vance began to talk of the concept of ordo amoris, or “order of love,” articulated by Catholic St. Augustine, claiming it justified the MAGA emphasis on family and tribalism and suggesting it justified the mass expulsion of migrants.
Vance told Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel, “[Y]ou love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then, after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world. A lot of the far left has completely inverted that.” When right-wing influencer Jack Posobiec, who is Catholic, posted Vance’s interview approvingly, Vance added: “Just google ‘ordo amoris.’ Aside from that, the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense.”
On February 10, Pope Francis responded in a letter to American bishops. He corrected Vance’s assertion as a false interpretation of Catholic theology. “Christians know very well that it is only by affirming the infinite dignity of all that our own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity,” he wrote. “Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups…. The true ordo amoristhat must be promoted is that which we discover by…meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”
“[W]orrying about personal, community or national identity, apart from these considerations, easily introduces an ideological criterion that distorts social life and imposes the will of the strongest as the criterion of truth,” Pope Francis wrote. He acknowledged “the right of a nation to defend itself and keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes while in the country or prior to arrival,” but defended the fundamental dignity of every human being and the fundamental rights of migrants, noting that the “rightly formed conscience” would disagree with any program that “identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.” He continued: “I exhort all the faithful of the Catholic Church, and all men and women of good will, not to give in to narratives that discriminate against and cause unnecessary suffering to our migrant and refugee brothers and sisters.”
The next day, Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, who said he was “a lifelong Catholic,” told reporters at the White House, “I’ve got harsh words for the Pope…. He ought to fix the Catholic Church and concentrate on his work and leave border enforcement to us.”
Cardinal Prevost was close to Pope Francis, and during this controversy he posted on X after Vance’s assertion but before Pope Francis’s answer: “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others.” After the pope published his letter, Prevost reposted it with the comment: “Pope Francis’ letter, JD Vance’s ‘ordo amoris’ and what the Gospel asks of all of us on immigration.”
On April 14, Prevost reposted: “As Trump & [Salvadoran president Nayib] Bukele use Oval to [laugh at] Feds’ illicit deportation of a US resident [Kilmar Abrego Garcia], once an undoc[ument]ed Salvadorean himself, [Bishop Evelio Menjivar] asks, ‘Do you not see the suffering? Is your conscience not disturbed? How can you stay quiet?’”
The new Pope Leo XIV greeted the world today in Italian and Spanish as he thanked Pope Francis and the other cardinals, and called for the church to “be a missionary Church, building bridges, dialogue, always open to receiving with open arms for everyone…, open to all, to all who need our charity, our presence, dialogue, love…, especially to those who are suffering.”
As an American-born pope in the model of Pope Francis, Pope Leo XIV might be able to appeal to American far-right Catholics and bring them back into the fold. But today, MAGAs responded to the new pope with fury. Right-wing influencer Laura Loomer, who is close to Trump, called Pope Leo “another Marxist puppet in the Vatican.” Influencer Charlie Kirk suggested he was an “[o]pen borders globalist installed to counter Trump.”
In the U.S., President Donald Trump, who said he would like to be pope and then posted a picture of himself dressed as a pope on May 2, prompting an angry backlash against those who thought it was disrespectful, posted on social media that the election of the first pope from the United States was “a Great Honor for our Country” and that he looks forward to meeting him. ‘It will be a very meaningful moment!” he added.
Trump pulled the nomination of the noxious Ed Martin, whom he had nominated to be U.S. Attorney for DC, a crucial post.
After Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina announced that he would not vote for Martin, his nomination was dead. The vote in the Senate Juduciary Committee would be 11-11, and Martin’s name would not go to the Senate floor.
In the world of horrible nominations for important posts, this was one of the worst. Ed Martin has been a vocal defender of the January 6 insurrectionists, even those who violently assaulted police officers. Think MAGA, then think extreme MAGA, and that’s Ed Martin. It was recently revealed that Martin appeared on Russian state media more than 150 times since 2016.
Thankful there is at least one Republican in the Senate who is not kissing Trump’s feet.
Neri Alvarado Borges was working for Latin Market Venezuelan Treats, which has locations in Far North Dallas and Lewisville, before he was deported to El Salvador’s Centro de Confinamiento Contra del Terrorismo last month.(Alvarado family / Courtesy)
****
The Trump administration has couched its aggressive ramp-up of deportations as an action to root out criminals. But signs are quickly emerging that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency is scooping up hardworking North Texas migrants with little or no criminal past in its “crackdown.”
Last week, editorial columnist Robert Wilonsky chronicled the case of Neri Alvarado Borges, a young Lewisville resident with a jigsaw-ribbon tattoo associated with autism awareness he wore in honor of his autistic little brother. Did Alvarado look like a hardened criminal to you?
In February, the Venezuelan citizen was seized by ICE officers outside his apartment, and eventually taken to an El Salvadoran prison with suspected members of the Tren de Aragua gang. If he ever gets out, Alvarado’s trauma will be lifelong.
Paul Hunker is a Dallas immigration attorney and former chief counsel of the Dallas office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Since the Trump administration took power, Hunker has been shocked by the profile of clients who come to him for help fighting deportation proceedings, he told me. These clients typically do not have criminal histories, Hunker said. They are hardworking members of the community, longtime residents. There’s a brief police encounter, a routine traffic stop, and they land in ICE custody.
“The model is detain-and-deport,” Hunker said. “The focus [in my time] was people who were a threat to their community, national-security threats and recent entrants. … Now they’re just going after everybody, even if they’ve been here for 20 years, with family ties. It doesn’t matter.”
ICE’s remit has changed drastically, and that change threatens to drag us all into something akin to a police state. ICE, and before it the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s enforcement arm, traditionally worked with the border patrol, focused on preventing undocumented migrants crossing the border. Apprehending a migrant in the act of an irregular border crossing is a vital part of rule-keeping, and something that has happened throughout U.S. history. Dragging family men out of their cars, throwing them into detention centers and kicking them out of the country is something ICE has never done. Until now.
That’s what appears to be happening to Jesus Ramos, of Lewisville. He, like me, is a green-card holder. Now, he’s facing deportation, allegedly because of nonviolent offenses in his past which have already been adjudicated. Ramos is on probation for simple assault and intent to possess drugs, according to reporting from NBC5.
He may have some substance-abuse problems, but Ramos is not a hardened criminal. Most families have members who go through similar struggles.
There are other stories. In Cedar Park in January, a young Venezuelan man with no criminal record was apprehended by ICE, according to an NPR story which withheld his name. Immigration officers told his family that the 18-year-old had appeared in an online video with guns and drugs, but they couldn’t produce the video for the family or for NPR.
ICE is still targeting serious offenders as the agency has always done since it launched in 2003, according to Hunker. But, as these cases and many of Hunker’s cases illustrate, ICE has new targets, too. And they are targets that we all know well.
ICE is targeting the people who climb on our roofs after hailstorms to fix the shingles. ICE is targeting the people who clean our houses and mind our children. What happens the next time your house-cleaner or your handyman drives home after a few too many?
That’s when the thorny moral question arises, the one your grandchildren may ask you: What did you do when dear, dear Nanny Gloria was swept up by burly officers and thrown in a cell?
What could you do? You will say. You were just one person.
“Tell your congressmen, ‘We don’t want this police state,’” said Hunker, who worked for ICE and its predecessor for more than 20 years. “‘Let ICE focus on people that are dangerous, and don’t try to deport those people who have their lives here.’”
I was reared in Ireland where memories of 1930s Central Europe were fresh. We are not there, yet or hopefully ever, but 20th-century history is no longer an abstract lesson.
My grandmother met some of the young people brought to London in the Kindertransport operation that evacuated Jewish children from Central Europe before World War II. She inspired my mother with a compassion for displaced families, and an animus for state authorities who displaced those families because of their outsider status.
It is all too easy, my mother taught me, to turn a blind eye to the state’s mistreatment of vulnerable outsiders.
A couple of weeks ago, I was in Houston. I saw an ICE officer cruising around a strip mall in her patrol SUV, and felt a familiar chill. As a reporter with interest in the subject, I wanted to ask the officer why she was there, who she was looking for. But I turned my back, and moved on.
In Ireland, looking on from across the ocean, we contrasted Europe’s 20th-century dystopia with Reagan’s America, a land where hard work and enterprise counted for more than paperwork. Kids a few years ahead of us in school escaped to New York and Chicago from recession-wracked Ireland. A few won green-card lotteries. Most fudged the paperwork for a few years. Nobody shook them down. They were allowed to build skyscrapers, restaurant chains and plumbing empires, and sort the paperwork out later.
Now their children run emergency rooms, law offices and trading floors all over this nation.
That’s the story of immigration in modern America. The authorities have always sought to facilitate the inclusion of hardworking immigrants, rather than seeking to exclude and detain people for paperwork reasons.
The Trump administration continues to insist it is only targeting migrants with a criminal past. ICE’s broad interpretation of those criteria is what troubles me. Who’s to say that today’s deportation for DUI won’t be tomorrow’s deportation for a traffic violation, or for having the wrong surname?
Or writing a newspaper column critical of the regime. My green card is soon up for renewal. I sometimes fear it will be revoked by the thin-skinned Trump government.
But I must be able to look my children in the eye, and so I must speak up for Neri Alvarado and for Jesus Ramos and an unnamed Venezuelan 18-year-old.
Veteran prosecutor Joyce Vance shared some good news: the nomination of Ed Martin to be U.S. Attorney in DC is hanging by a thread and may be dead. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina interviewed Martin and said he would vote no in the Senate Judiciary Committee because Martin supported the January 6 insurrectionists, even those who assaulted police officers. Since the split on the committee is 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats, Martin’s nomination would not get to the Senate floor. If you live in North Carolina, please call Senator Tillis and thank him.
Vance writes:
Last night, I wrote to you about Ed Martin, Trump’s nominee to be the United States Attorney in Washington, D.C.. Martin, until quite recently, used the handle “Eagle Ed Martin” on Twitter, a reference to his days working for Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum. Apparently, someone mentioned to him during the last month that the handle wasn’t appropriate for a U.S. Attorney hopeful.
But no whisper in the ear could fix Martin’s other flaws, from utter lack of qualifications and knowledge about how to do the job to flagrant ties to people known for their open antisemitism. Last night, I suggested we all needed to be in touch with our senators on the Martin nomination. Although we still need to do that, the message is different now. That’s because North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, made it known that he won’t support Martin.
Before Martin goes to the floor of the Senate for a confirmation vote, he has to make it out of committee. And that’s unlikely to happen now. The Senate Judiciary Committee is made up of 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats. All of the Democrats oppose Martin. With Tillis abandoning him, the best Martin could do is 11-11, and a nominee who receives a tie vote doesn’t advance. For all practical purposes, the outcome of that vote will be a death knell for his nomination.
Martin may end up rewarded for his loyal service to Trump and Musk with another plum job, one that doesn’t require Senate confirmation. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t celebrate the moment and the fact that it looks like he won’t be the top law enforcement officer in the District of Columbia. Defeating Martin’s nomination wasn’t a foregone conclusion—far from it. It took lots of research, lots of conversation, and lots of hard work by a lot of people. You never know which issue, or even which call or letter, is going to be the last straw. What matters is that Trump and his plans are not inevitable, and it makes a difference when all of us push back against the horrible as hard as we can.
Tillis told reporters this morning that he is unable to support Martin because of Martin’s support for defendants convicted of committing crimes in connection with January 6. He is certain to face a sustained backlash from MAGA’s inner circle, so if he’s your senator, make sure you thank him, and if your senator is on the Judiciary Committee (that’s Grassley, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Tillis, Kennedy, Blackburn, Schmitt, Britt, and Moody on the Republican side and Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, Padilla, Welch, and Schiff for the Democrats) this is a good time to reach out and either thank them for opposing or encourage them to show a little backbone and follow Tillis’ lead. Martin, after all, supports the people who overran the Capitol, threatening these folks and their staff. He is the least qualified selection I can recall seeing to lead a U.S. Attorney’s office, even edging out Trump’s former attorney Alina Habba, the New Jersey nominee, who should be rejected as well. This is a very big win for pro-democracy forces.
There was also a win on a very different front, one that didn’t get a lot of national attention. Trump’s efforts to cut staff and funding at national parks have garnered a lot of attention in the protests that have cropped up across the country. Many protests have taken place at the parks themselves, notably at Yosemite, where staff unfurled an upside-down American flag atop El Capitan to signal distress. On March 1, people protested at all 433 sites in the national park system—the 63 national parks and additional sites like monuments and historic places. Americans, it turns out, love their national parks.
Despite that, the Trump administration continues to keep them on the chopping block. Last week, the Washington Post reported that the Trump administration had suspended all air-quality monitoring at national parks, stating that “The Interior Department, which includes the National Park Service, issued stop-work orders last week to the two contractors running the program, the email shows.”
The reporting provided detail that makes it clear this is a serious matter:
Data was being collected on ozone and particulate matter and being used in connection with requests to grant permits to industrial facilities like power plants and oil refineries in close proximity to the parks.
The pollutants data was being collected on are “linked to a range of adverse health effects,” including “heart attacks, strokes, asthma attacks and premature death.”
One goal of the program is “to curb regional haze,” which has “reduced visibility at scenic viewpoints in parks nationwide” over the past few decades.
Park Service employees pushed back and demanded that monitoring continue. They pointed out that states lack the equipment and resources to monitor and that without federal monitoring, they would be flying blind. It’s part and parcel of discontinuing environmental justice work at the Justice Department. Data makes it possible to protect the environment and the people who live in it. Trump is creating a permissive environment for business—when you can’t document the consequences of a new plant permit, for instance, it’s hard to oppose it.
But today, Washington Post reporter Teddy Amenabar posted on social media that “After The Post’s article was published, a Park Service spokesperson said the stop-work orders would be reversed and that ‘contractors will be notified immediately.’” Whether it’s traditional media, new media, protests, or our communications with our elected officials, it’s clear that none of what Trump wants to do is inevitable. Sunlight continues to act as a disinfectant. Government employees need public support right now, especially as many of them continue to bravely do the right thing, whether it’s federal prosecutors or park rangers. They richly deserve our support.
So if you’ve been questioning whether what you’re doing matters, it does. The signs you make, the protests you go to, the letters and calls you make to elected officials, your efforts to share information (like this newsletter) with people—all of these efforts matter. It all adds up, small victories and large ones.
Speaking of big ones, Donald Trump appears to have knowingly lied when he invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) in order to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. In his proclamation, he said, “TdA operates in conjunction with Cártel de los Soles, the Nicolas Maduro regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela, and commits brutal crimes, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and human, drug, and weapons trafficking. TdA has engaged in and continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and supporting the Maduro regime’s goal of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States.”
Not so fast. An intelligence community memo was partially declassified yesterday, two weeks after a FOIA request was made for it—that’s lightning speed in the world of FOIA, where requests can drag on for years. The memo contradicts Trump’s claimed basis for invoking the AEA. Hat tip to my friend Ryan Goodman, whose new Substack is great if you haven’t seen it already, for highlighting the parts of the memo that contradict Trump’s claim that TdA is mounting an invasion of the U.S. on behalf of Venezuela’s government.
It’s not clear how or whether this will impact ongoing litigation. Judges largely defer to presidential assessments of this nature under the political questions doctrine. We don’t know if this revelation will have any impact in court, although there should be some ambit, even if it’s small, for courts to reject presidential assessments that run entirely contrary to the facts. But in the court of public opinion, where facts still matter, here are some facts, from the people who know the subject best.
Finally for tonight, the North Carolina Supreme Court race that we’ve been following so carefully since last November seems to finally be over, and Allison Riggs, the Democrat who won the race, will now be declared the winner per an order issued by a federal judge who is a Trump appointee. Two recounts confirmed Riggs’ victory, but the disgruntled loser challenged it nonetheless. He tried to convince courts to disallow ballots cast by North Carolina voters who complied with all of the rules for voting by changing the rules about what ballots could be counted after the fact. He could still appeal this ruling, but it is a solid decision and unlikely to be reversed on appeal. The bottom line democratic principle is that you don’t get to move the goal posts to secure a victory. Didn’t work for Trump, and it didn’t work in North Carolina. Chalk another one up for the rule of law.
Whether it’s lawsuits or your letters, engaged citizens get results. We have a long way to go, but take heart; we are making progress. We can get there. Every little step forward adds to the tally in favor of democracy.
The Trump administration has declared war on Harvard University, for what is now–in the Trump era–the usual reasons: allegedly, that Harvard is not doing enough to stop anti-Semitism (a claim that is opposed by many Jews, who don’t want to be the favorite cause of a hateful, bigoted President); that Harvard engages in the policies of diversity, equity, and inclusion, which have been banned by the Trump administration; and that Harvard engages in “racism” by admitting and hiring nonwhite students and professors. The Trump administration has demanded the power to monitor Harvard’s curriculum, admissions, and hiring. Such a federal takeover is obviously unacceptable to Harvard, as it should be unacceptable to any private institution.
To Harvard and other universities, such a government intrusion would compromise academic freedom and their independence. Frankly, the best characterization of this government takeover of independent private institutions is fascist.
The Trump administration is currently withholding $2.2 billion that is dedicated to medical and scientific research. Does it make sense to punish Harvard’s alleged DEI transgressions by stopping funding for projects seeking cures for tuberculosis and ALS?
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon wrote a condescending, insulting letter to Harvard, warning that it would no longer receive any funding until it accepted Trump’s demands. She posted it on Twitter.
Page 1Page 2Page 3
She accused Harvard of “disastrous mismanagement,” snd she warned, “This letter is to inform you that Harvard should no longer seek grants from the federal government, since none will be provided.” Her biggest grievance appears to be that Harvard continues to practice affirmative action despite the Supreme Court banning it. The Trump administration considers any effort to admit or hire people of color to be racism. So the very presence of Black students and professors is evidence that Harvard engages in “ugly racism.”
In her letter, Secretary McMahon rants about Harvard’s abandonment of “merit” and of the excellence for which it was once known.
This stance is ironic, coming from a member of the most unqualified, incompetent Cabinet in modern American history. Was McMahon the best qualified person to be Secretary of Education? Did her experience in the world of wrestling entertainment qualify her to lecture Harvard about academic excellence? Was there no Republican State Commissioner of Education or university president available?
Was Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the best person to run the department of Health and Human Services? Did Pete Hegseth become Secretary of Defense because of his merit?
Various Twitter accounts have posted a copy of her letter with her grammatical errors marked in red pencil. They claim this was Harvard’s response, but it was not.
Harvard responded with a dignified letter to McMahon that restated their intention not to be cowed by her threats, rudeness, and bluster.
In a statement on Monday night, a Harvard spokesperson said the letter showed the administration “doubling down on demands that would impose unprecedented and improper control over Harvard University and would have chilling implications for higher education.”
The statement suggested it would be illegal to withhold funds in the manner Ms. McMahon described.
“Harvard will continue to comply with the law, promote and encourage respect for viewpoint diversity, and combat antisemitism in our community,” the statement said. “Harvard will also continue to defend against illegal government overreach aimed at stifling research and innovation that make Americans safer and more secure.”
I’m betting on Harvard. They are fighting for academic freedom and for freedom from government control of a private institution. They will have the best legal talent. They will be represented by lawyers with sterling conservative credentials.
Harvard will be here long after the Trump administration is a memory, a very bad memory, like the McCarthy era.
Trump’s war on higher education is similar to his war on every other major institution. He wants everyone to be afraid of him. He wants no critics to escape his wrath. He wants dissident voices silenced. He wants to be our king, our emperor, our dictator.
He has threatened to punish law firms that have represented his opponents, such as his 2016 challenger Hillary Clinton and Special Counsel Jack Smith, who gathered evidence of Trump’s crimes but was ultimately defeated by Trump’s delaying tactics.
He has threatened the news media, hitting CBS News “60 Minutes” with a $10 billion lawsuit for editing its interview with Kamala Harris (which is standard practice) and suing ABC News for a remark by George Stephanopoulos that he didn’t like. Both of these are frivolous lawsuits, but CBS is negotiating a settlement and ABC paid out $15 million to end the lawsuit. In a pre-emptive conciliatory move, Amazon (Jeff Bezos) bought the rights to a documentary about Melania Trump for $40 million, which will be produced by Melania. Bezos owns The Washington Post, where he has told the editorial board to go easy on Trump. The Post lost some of its best journalists after Bezos groveled to Trump.
He has threatened to cut off federal funding to universities if they don’t meet his demands. The ostensible reason for targeting universities is to compel them to combat anti-Semitism on their campuses, but it’s hard to credit Trump’s sincerity. He has defended anti-Semites, dined with them, and received their support. His best friend Elon Musk supported Germany’s far-right AfD party in the recent elections. A man who cares so little about civil rights, who attacks academic freedom, who defunds education and social services, who belittles minorities, who threatens democracy, and who is so utterly lacking in compassion–is no friend of Jews.
Last Friday, Trump said on his “Truth Social” account:
“We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status,” Trump wrote in a social media post. “It’s what they deserve!”
The President of the United States cannot take away the tax-exempt status of any individual or organization. That is a decision made by the IRS, and it is illegal for the President or Vice-President or any other government official to interfere in that decision. Such a decision is made by the IRS, must be made for cause, and the institution has the right to defend itself. The process can take years.
If the President could order the IRS to audit or investigate his enemies, it would be a very dangerous policy. He can’t. With Trump, the law is a minor inconvenience, so who knows what he will do. The Supreme Court told him he has absolute immunity so maybe he can disregard the law.
The Trump administration is blasting away at Harvard on multiple fronts. The Department of Homeland Security has threatened to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, who are 27 percent of Harvard’s enrollments.
The Education Department has demanded that Harvard supply the names and email addresses of all foreign students who were expelled since 2016. The Department also wants the names of all scholars, researchers, students and faculty associated with any foreign government. Just a few days ago, Secretary McMahon informed Harvard that it is no longer eligible for new funding so long as it continues to oppose the president’s agenda. That would mean allowing Trump’s agents to take control of admissions, hiring, and curriculum. The nation’s most prestigious university would have to abandon its independence to Trump.
The Department of Health and Human Services and the National Science Foundation have suspended over $2 billion in grants to Harvard for medical and scientific research. Studies that are focused on causes and cures for tuberculosis and ALS, for example, have come to a halt. Another $7 billion in research funding could be suspended. This could damage the research and work of hospitals across the Boston metro area, and the economy of Massachusetts as well. Since Massachusetts is a blue state, Trump doesn’t care.
If this looks like harassment, that’s because it is.
Trump is certainly no libertarian. He is using every federal source of funding to compel universities, colleges, schools, cities, and states to follow his commands.
ProPublica revealed that Ed Martin, Trump’s choice, for the high-powered job of U.S. Attorney in D.C. is ethically challenged. We already knew that Martin was a strident defender of the January 6 insurrectionists and represented some of them as their attorney. We also knew that Ed Martin has a long history of promoting conspiracy theories.
We learned only a couple of weeks ago that Mr. Martin has appeared on Russian state media more than 150 times between 2016 and 2024, a detail he initially forgot to share with the Senate Judiciary Committee vetting him. The Washington Post reported, “In early 2022, Martin told an interviewer on the same arm of RT’s global network that “there’s no evidence” of a Russian military buildup on Ukraine’s borders, criticizing U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia’s security concerns. Russia invaded nine days later, igniting a war that continues today.”
What we didn’t know is that in one important case, he was coaching someone else to attack the judge hearing the case.
Trump has chosen many unqualified people for high positions. Ed Martin is one of his worst choices.
The attacks on Judge John Barberis in the fall of 2016 appeared on his personal Facebook page. They impugned his ethics, criticized a recent ruling and branded him as a “politician” with the “LOWEST rating for a judge in Illinois.”
Barberis, a state court judge in an Illinois county across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, was presiding over a nasty legal battle for control over the Eagle Forum, the vaunted grassroots group founded by Phyllis Schlafly, matriarch of the anti-feminist movement. The case pitted Schlafly’s youngest daughter against three of her sons, almost like a Midwest version of the HBO program “Succession” (without the obscenities).
At the heart of the dispute — and the lead defendant in the case — was Ed Martin, a lawyer by training and a political operative by trade. In Missouri, where he was based, Martin was widely known as an irrepressible gadfly who trafficked in incendiary claims and trailed controversy wherever he went. Today, he’s the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., and one of the most prominent members of the Trump Justice Department.
In early 2015, Schlafly had selected Martin to succeed her as head of the Eagle Forum, a crowning moment in Martin’s career. Yet after just a year in charge, the group’s board fired Martin. Schlafly’s youngest daughter, Anne Schlafly Cori, and a majority of the Eagle Forum board filed a lawsuit to bar Martin from any association with the organization.
After Barberis dealt Martin a major setback in the case in October 2016, the attacks began. The Facebook user who posted them, Priscilla Gray, had worked in several roles for Schlafly but was not a party to the case, and her comments read like those of an aggrieved outsider.
Almost two years later, the truth emerged as Cori’s lawyers gathered evidence for her lawsuit: Behind the posts about the judge was none other than Martin.
ProPublica obtained previously unreported documents filed in the case that show Martin had bought a laptop for Gray and that she subsequently offered to “happily write something to attack this judge.” And when she did, Martin ghostwrote more posts for her to use and coached her on how to make her comments look more “organic.”
Ed Martin exchanged emails with Priscilla Gray, who had worked in various roles for Phyllis Schlafly, about how to attack Judge John Barberis. (Documents obtained, formatted and highlighted by ProPublica)
“That is not justice but a rigged system,” he urged her to write. “Shame on you and this broken legal system.”
“Call what he did unfair and rigged over and over,” Martin continued.
Martin even urged Gray to message the judge privately. “Go slow and steady,” he advised. “Make it organic.”
Gray appeared to take Martin’s advice. “Private messaging him that sweet line,” she wrote. It was not clear from the court record what, if anything, she wrote at that juncture.
Gray told Martin she would direct message Barberis after she was blocked from commenting on his Facebook page. (Documents obtained, formatted and highlighted by ProPublica)
Legal experts told ProPublica that Martin’s conduct in the Eagle Forum case was a clear violation of ethical norms and professional rules. Martin’s behavior, they said, was especially egregious because he was both a defendant in the case and a licensed attorney.
Martin appeared to be “deliberately interfering with a judicial proceeding with the intent to undermine the integrity of the outcome,” said Scott Cummings, a professor of legal ethics at UCLA School of Law. “That’s not OK.”
Martin did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Martin’s legal and political career is dotted with questions about his professional and ethical conduct. But for all his years in the spotlight, some of the most serious concerns about his conduct have remained in the shadows — buried in court filings, overlooked by the press or never reported at all.
His actions have led to more than $600,000 in legal settlements or judgments against Martin or his employers in a handful of cases. In the Eagle Forum lawsuit, another judge found him in civil contempt, citing his “willful disregard” of a court order, and a jury found him liable for defamation and false light against Cori.
Cori also tried to have Martin charged with criminal contempt for his role in orchestrating the posts about Barberis, but a judge declined to take up the request and said she could take the case to the county prosecutor. Cori said her attorney met with a detective; Martin was never charged.
Nonetheless, the emails unearthed by ProPublica were evidence that he had violated Missouri rules for lawyers, according to Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics expert and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. She said lawyers are prohibited from trying to contact a judge outside of court in a case they are involved in, and they are barred from using a proxy to do something they are barred from doing themselves….
As one of its first personnel picks, the Trump administration chose Martin to be interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, one of the premier jobs for a federal prosecutor.
A wide array of former prosecutors, legal observers and others have raised questions about his qualifications for an office known for handling high-profile cases. Martin has no experience as a prosecutor. He has never taken a case to trial, according to his public disclosures. As the acting leader of the largest U.S. attorney’s office in the country, he directs the work of hundreds of lawyers who appear in court on a vast array of subjects, including legal disputes arising out of Congress, national security matters, public corruption and civil rights, as well as homicides, drug trafficking and many other local crimes.
Over the last four years, the office prosecuted more than 1,500 people as part of the massive investigation into the violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. While Trump has pardoned the Jan. 6 defendants, Martin has taken action against the prosecutors who brought those cases. In just three months, he has overseen the dismissal of outstanding Jan. 6-related cases, fired more than a dozen prosecutors and opened an investigation into the charging decisions made in those riot cases.
Martin has also investigated Democratic lawmakers and members of the Biden family; forced out the chief of the criminal division after she refused to initiate an investigation desired by Trump appointees citing a lack of evidence, according to her resignation letter; threatened Georgetown University’s law school over its diversity, equity and inclusion policies; and vowed to investigate threats against Department of Government Efficiency employees or “chase” people in the federal government “discovered to have broken the law or even acted simply unethically.”
Martin “has butchered the position, effectively destroying it as a vehicle by which to pursue justice and turning it into a political arm of the current administration,” says an open letter signed by more than 100 former prosecutors who worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia under Democratic and Republican presidents.
New York State law requires private and religious schools to offer an education that is substantially equivalent to what is offered at secular public schools. Some Orthodox Jewish schools refuse to comply. Repeated inspections have found that the recalcitrant Yeshivas do not teach English and do not teach math and science in English.
Dr. Betty Rosa, an experienced educator and New York State Commissioner of Education, has insisted that Yeshivas comply with the law. She fears that their students are graduating from high school without the language skills required for higher education and the workplace.
The Hasidim are a tight-knit group that often votes as a bloc to enhance their political power. They vote for whoever promises to support their interests. Both parties compete for their endorsement.
New York lawmakers are considering a measure that would dramatically weaken their oversight over religious schools, potentially a major victory for the state’s Hasidic Jewish community.
The proposal, which could become part of a state budget deal, has raised profound concern among education experts, including the state education commissioner, Betty Rosa, who said in an interview that such changes amount to a “travesty” for children who attend religious schools that do not offer a basic secular education.
“We would be truly compromising the future of these young people,” by weakening the law, Ms. Rosa said. “As the architect of education in this system, how could I possibly support that decision,” she added.
Behind the scenes, a major sticking point appears to be whether the governor and the Legislature will agree to the changes on private school oversight, according to several people with direct knowledge of the negotiations, which may include a delay in any potential consequences for private schools that receive enormous sums of taxpayer dollars but sometimes flout state education law by not offering basic education in English or math.
The state is also considering lowering the standards that a school would have to meet in order to demonstrate that it is following the law.
Though the potential changes in state education law would technically apply to all private schools, they are chiefly relevant to Hasidic schools, which largely conduct religious lessons in Yiddish and Hebrew in their all-boys schools, known as yeshivas.
The potential deal is the result of years of lobbying by Hasidic leaders and their political representatives…
The Hasidic community has long seen government oversight of their schools as an existential threat, and it has emerged as their top political issue in recent years.
It has taken on fresh urgency in recent months, as the state education department, led by Ms. Rosa, has moved for the first time to enforce the law, after years of deliberation and delay….
There is little dispute, even among Hasidic leaders, that many yeshivas across the lower Hudson Valley and parts of Brooklyn are failing to provide an adequate secular education. Some religious leaders have boasted about their refusal to comply with the law and have barred families from having English books in their homes.
A 2022 New York Times investigation found that scores of all-boys yeshivas collected about $1 billion in government funding over a four-year period but failed to provide a basic education, and that teachers in some of the schools used corporal punishment.
It is clear why Hasidic leaders, who are deeply skeptical of any government oversight, would want to weaken and delay consequences for the schools they help run.
It is less obvious why elected officials would concede to those demands during this particular budget season. There is widespread speculation in Albany that Ms. Hochul, facing what may be a tough re-election fight next year, is hoping to curry favor from Hasidic officials, who could improve her chances with an endorsement….
Hasidic voters are increasingly conservative and tend to favor Republicans in general election contests.…
New York’s state education law related to private schools, which is known as the substantial equivalency law, has been on the books for more than a century.
It was an obscure, uncontroversial rule up until a few years ago, when graduates of Hasidic yeshivas who said they were denied a basic education filed a complaint with the state, claiming that their education left them unprepared to navigate the secular world and find decent jobs.
After Trump introduced Elon Musk and his so-called “Department of Government Efficiency,” several Republican-controlled states created their own DOGE operations. Like the one Musk launched, these were non-governmental, unelected, unaccountable cost-cutters, set loose to apply a chainsaw to state government.
John Thompson reports on what happened in Oklahoma.
CBS’s Sixty Minutes recently reported on the danger of H5N1 bird flu spinning out of control. It cited Dr. Kamran Khan who explained why “We are really at risk of this virus evolving into one that has pandemic potential.” Another expert agreed that “this flu could make Covid look like a walk in the park.”
And this is only one reason for looking into the DOGE–OK process.
Anyone paying attention to Elon Musk’s leadership of the Trump administration’s DOGE campaign to cut federal programs has reason the fear the DOGE campaigns launched in 26 states. After all, as the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) explains, when Governor Kevin Stitt opened Oklahoma’s DOGE-OK, he called for a reduction in our personal income and corporate tax rates, thus making the state’s tax code even more regressive.
The EPI further explained that Stitt selected Marc Nuttle, “who was the ‘chief strategist’ behind Oklahoma’s 2001 so-called right-to-work referendum—a policy designed to disempower workers and lower wages (and contrary to proponents’ claims, it did not bolster job growth in the state).” The executive order empowered Nuttle to lead efforts of a newly formed agency to study the state budget.
Moreover, the EPI explains:
DOGE-OK is itself duplicative since the Office of the State Auditor and Inspector is constitutionally mandated to “examine the state and all county treasurers’ books, accounts, and cash on hand, stipulating that [the office] shall perform other duties as may be prescribed by law.” Similar to DOGE-OK, the auditor reviews staffing levels, assesses state spending, and issues public reports to promote transparency.
Once DOGE-OK ideas are received, they are analyzed and vetted with the appropriate group. If validated, ideas are added to the DOGE-OK website.
But, when I studied the report, I found no sign of hard evidence to back its claims. For instance, they didn’t explain their methodology, and offered no cost/benefit analyses. DOGE didn’t explain what “groups” it considered to be “appropriate,” and what data was used to analyze and vet, and validate their ideas.
Since the first DOGE headlines focused on $157 million in supposedly “wasteful health grants” by the federal government, I focused on Medicaid and Department of Health cuts.
First, DOGE-OK claimed that $60 million per year would be saved if the state, not the federal government, performed eligibility checks on children. And, they cited two drugs that received accelerated approval without working, costing $42 million. But, they did not mention the number and the benefits of the other drugs, like the Covid vaccine, that received accelerated approval.
Also, DOGE-OK inexplicably said that easing the prescription drug cost cap would improve prices. And they recommended repeal of staffing requirements for Long-Term Care facilities in order to save $76 million annually, without mentioning harm to elderly patients due to under-staffing.
DOGE-OK also said that three Oklahoma State Department of Health programs should be cut by almost $150 million because their funding exceeded the amount necessary. As already mentioned, in the wake of Covid pandemic, and as measles and bird flu spread, these programs provide immunization services, pathogens surveillance, and emerging infectious diseases prevention, etc. So, how did DOGE reach the conclusion that the full funding of those programs is no longer necessary?
Then, DOGE-OK said that 7 programs should have cuts because of “duplication,” with partners doing the same or similar work. They said $2.2 million would be saved by getting rid of the team efforts necessary to improve health.
And Sex Education should be cut by $236,000 because of its low Return on Investment.
Again, I saw no evidence behind their recommendations for $157,606,300 in overall health care reductions. Neither did they address financial costs of implementing their ideas. And, there is no evidence that DOGE seriously considered the costs in terms of the lives that would be damaged or lost.
Given the history of the Trump/Musk DOGE, none of the DOGE–OK should be a surprise. When Gov. Stitt selected Nuttle, a true-believer in Milton Friedman, to run the project, Stitt said, “With his help, we’ll leave state government leaner than we found it.”
Is that the proper way to launch a supposedly balanced and evidence-driven investigation of such complex and crucial policy approaches?
Stitt’s news release previewed Nuttle’s methodology: “use his knowledge of the inner workings of government to comb through agency budgets, legislative appropriations, and contracts.”
So, to paraphrase the DOGE-OK report’s description of its methodology, its proposals would be “analyzed and vetted” by what they see as the “appropriate group.”
In other words, Oklahomans were never promised an open, balanced, evidence-based DOGE process for making our state better. But the same is also true for Musk’s federal DOGE chainsaw.
Diane Ravitch's blog 