Archives for category: Civil Rights
« Older Entries

The Context of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”

By dianeravitch
January 19, 2026 //
1

Dr. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” was written in April 1963. Dr. King wrote in response to a public statement by Birmingham religious leaders who called on Dr. King to be patient and not to engage in demonstrations that would provoke resistance.

This context in which he wrote the letter appears on the website of The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University.

In April 1963 King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) joined with Birmingham, Alabama’s existing local movement, the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights (ACMHR), in a massive direct action campaign to attack the city’s segregation system by putting pressure on Birmingham’s merchants during the Easter season, the second biggest shopping season of the year. As ACMHR founder Fred Shuttlesworth stated in the group’s “Birmingham Manifesto,” the campaign was “a moral witness to give our community a chance to survive” (ACMHR, 3 April 1963). 

The campaign was originally scheduled to begin in early March 1963, but was postponed until 2 April when the relatively moderate Albert Boutwell defeated Birmingham’s segregationist commissioner of public safety, Eugene “Bull” Connor, in a run-off mayoral election. On 3 April the desegregation campaign was launched with a series of mass meetings, direct actions, lunch counter sit-ins, marches on City Hall, and a boycott of downtown merchants. King spoke to black citizens about the philosophy of nonviolence and its methods, and extended appeals for volunteers at the end of the mass meetings. With the number of volunteers increasing daily, actions soon expanded to kneel-ins at churches, sit-ins at the library, and a march on the county building to register voters. Hundreds were arrested. 

On 10 April the city government obtained a state circuit court injunction against the protests. After heavy debate, campaign leaders decided to disobey the court order. King declared: “We cannot in all good conscience obey such an injunction which is an unjust, undemocratic and unconstitutional misuse of the legal process” (ACMHR, 11 April 1963). Plans to continue to submit to arrest were threatened, however, because the money available for cash bonds was depleted, so leaders could no longer guarantee that arrested protesters would be released. King contemplated whether he and Ralph Abernathy should be arrested. Given the lack of bail funds, King’s services as a fundraiser were desperately needed, but King also worried that his failure to submit to arrests might undermine his credibility. King concluded that he must risk going to jail in Birmingham. He told his colleagues: “I don’t know what will happen; I don’t know where the money will come from. But I have to make a faith act” (King, 73). 

On Good Friday, 12 April, King was arrested in Birmingham after violating the anti-protest injunction and was kept in solitary confinement. During this time King penned the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” on the margins of the Birmingham News, in reaction to a statement published in that newspaper by eight Birmingham clergymen condemning the protests. King’s request to call his wife, Coretta Scott King, who was at home in Atlanta recovering from the birth of their fourth child, was denied. After she communicated her concern to the Kennedy administration, Birmingham officials permitted King to call home. Bail money was made available, and he was released on 20 April 1963. 

In order to sustain the campaign, SCLC organizer James Bevel proposed using young children in demonstrations. Bevel’s rationale for the Children’s Crusade was that young people represented an untapped source of freedom fighters without the prohibitive responsibilities of older activists. On 2 May more than 1,000 African American students attempted to march into downtown Birmingham, and hundreds were arrested. When hundreds more gathered the following day, Commissioner Connor directed local police and fire departments to use force to halt the demonstrations. During the next few days images of children being blasted by high-pressure fire hoses, clubbed by police officers, and attacked by police dogs appeared on television and in newspapers, triggering international outrage. While leading a group of child marchers, Shuttlesworth himself was hit with the full force of a fire hose and had to be hospitalized. King offered encouragement to parents of the young protesters: “Don’t worry about your children, they’re going to be alright. Don’t hold them back if they want to go to jail. For they are doing a job for not only themselves, but for all of America and for all mankind” (King, 6 May 1963). 

In the meantime, the white business structure was weakening under adverse publicity and the unexpected decline in business due to the boycott, but many business owners and city officials were reluctant to negotiate with the protesters. With national pressure on the White House also mounting, Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent Burke Marshall, his chief civil rights assistant, to facilitate negotiations between prominent black citizens and representatives of Birmingham’s Senior Citizen’s Council, the city’s business leadership. 

The Senior Citizen’s Council sought a moratorium on street protests as an act of good faith before any final settlement was declared, and Marshall encouraged campaign leaders to halt demonstrations, accept an interim compromise that would provide partial success, and negotiate the rest of their demands afterward. Some black negotiators were open to the idea, and although the hospitalized Shuttlesworth was not present at the negotiations, on 8 May King told the negotiators he would accept the compromise and call the demonstrations to a halt. 

When Shuttlesworth learned that King intended to announce a moratorium he was furious—about both the decision to ease pressure off white business owners and the fact that he, as the acknowledged leader of the local movement, had not been consulted. Feeling betrayed, Shuttlesworth reminded King that he could not legitimately speak for the black population of Birmingham on his own: “Go ahead and call it off … When I see it on TV, that you have called it off, I will get up out of this, my sickbed, with what little ounce of strength I have, and lead them back into the street. And your name’ll be Mud” (Hampton and Fayer, 136). King made the announcement anyway, but indicated that demonstrations might be resumed if negotiations did not resolve the situation shortly. 

By 10 May negotiators had reached an agreement, and despite his falling out with King, Shuttlesworth joined him and Abernathy to read the prepared statement that detailed the compromise: the removal of “Whites Only” and “Blacks Only” signs in restrooms and on drinking fountains, a plan to desegregate lunch counters, an ongoing “program of upgrading Negro employment,” the formation of a biracial committee to monitor the progress of the agreement, and the release of jailed protesters on bond (“The Birmingham Truce Agreement,” 10 May 1963). 

Birmingham segregationists responded to the agreement with a series of violent attacks. That night an explosive went off near the Gaston Motel room where King and SCLC leaders had previously stayed, and the next day the home of King’s brother Alfred Daniel King was bombed. President John F. Kennedy responded by ordering 3,000 federal troops into position near Birmingham and making preparations to federalize the Alabama National Guard. Four months later, on 15 September, Ku Klux Klan members bombed Birmingham’s Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, killing four young girls. King delivered the eulogy at the 18 September joint funeral of three of the victims, preaching that the girls were “the martyred heroines of a holy crusade for freedom and human dignity” (King, “Eulogy for the Martyred Children,” 18 September 1963). 

Footnotes

“The Birmingham Truce Agreement,” 10 May 1963, in Eyes on the Prize, ed. Carson et al., 1991. 

Douglas Brinkley, “The Man Who Kept King’s Secrets,” Vanity Fair (April 2006): 156–171.

Eskew, But for Birmingham, 1997. 

Hampton and Fayer, with Flynn, Voices of Freedom, 1990. 

King, Address delivered at mass meeting, 6 May 1963, FRC-DSI-FC. 

King, Eulogy for the Martyred Children, 18 September 1963, in A Call to Conscience, ed. Carson and Shepard, 2001.

King, Shuttlesworth, and Abernathy, Statement, “For engaging in peaceful desegregation demonstrations,” 11 April 1963, BWOF-AB.

King, Why We Can’t Wait, 1964.

Shuttlesworth and N. H. Smith, “Birmingham Manifesto,” 3 April 1963, MLKJP-GAMK. Back to Top

Stanford

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute

Categories Alabama, Bigotry, Civil Rights, Courage, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Ethics, Freedom, History, Injustice

A Conversation with Norman B of Tampa NPR About My Memoir

By dianeravitch
January 16, 2026 //
8

Norman Batley hosts a podcast called “Life Elsewhere with Norman B.” He is based in Tampa, Florida. The program is widely distributed through WMNF and NPR. He asks great questions, and I was thrilled to be invited to be on his show.

I hope you will listen.

Categories Arizona, Civil Rights, Education Industry, Education Reform, Equity, Ethics, Evil, Ravitch, Diane, School Choice

Why Is the Justice Department Refusing to Investigate Killing of Renee Good?

By dianeravitch
January 14, 2026 //
12

This short video was made by Liz Oyer, who used to be the attorney in charge of Presidential pardons at the Justice Department.

Please watch.

Categories Accountability, Civil Rights, Justice, Trump

U.S. Justice Department Will Investigate Renee Good and Her Widow, Not ICE Officer Who Killed Her

By dianeravitch
January 14, 2026 //
6

The Trump administration is determined to prove that Renee Good was a domestic terrorist who was trying to kill an ICE officer by running him down with her car. He had to kill her to save his own life. The many videos that have been released demonstrate that these assertions were lies. Renee Good was attempting to flee the scene and did not strike or injure ICE agent Jonathan Ross, who fired three shots point blank at her and killed her.

The New York Times reported that key federal prosecutors in Minnesota quit rather than defend the administration’s lies. The government wanted them to investigate the victim’s widow for links to terrorism.

Three Minnesota federal prosecutors resigned over the Justice Department’s push to investigate the widow of a woman killed by an ICE agent and its reluctance to investigate the shooter, according to people with knowledge of their decision.

Joseph H. Thompson, who was second in command at the U.S. attorney’s office and oversaw a sprawling fraud investigation that has roiled Minnesota’s political landscape, was among those who quit Tuesday, according to three people with knowledge of the decision.

Mr. Thompson’s resignation came after senior Justice Department officials pressed for a criminal investigation into the actions of the widow of Renee Nicole Good, the Minneapolis woman killed by an ICE agent last Wednesday.

Mr. Thompson, 47, a career prosecutor, objected to that approach as well as to the Justice Department’s refusal to include state officials in investigating whether the shooting itself was lawful, the people familiar with his decision said.

Two other senior career prosecutors, Harry Jacobs and Melinda Williams, also resigned on Tuesday. Mr. Jacobs had been Mr. Thompson’s deputy overseeing the fraud investigation, which began in 2022. Mr. Thompson, Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Williams declined to discuss the reasons they resigned

The Guardian reported that several attorneys in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division resigned in protest when they learned that the Government would investigate the victim but not the killer.

The Guardian reported.

Several attorneys in the US justice department’s civil rights division have reportedly resigned in protest at a decision not to investigate the fatal shooting of an unarmed US citizen by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis – while the FBI presses ahead with an inquiry into the victim.

At least four leaders of the division’s criminal investigations section have stepped down, according to MS NOW, citing three people it said were briefed about the departures.

It follows a decision by Harmeet Dhillon, the Donald Trump administration-aligned assistant attorney general for civil rights, not to investigate the 7 January killing of Renee Nicole Good by Jonathan Ross, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, as would be usual in the case of a shooting by law enforcement.

Separately, the FBI – which seized total control of the investigation after freezing out local officials – is looking into Good’s “possible connections to activist groups”, according to the New York Times. A succession of Trump administration officials, including the president himself, have portrayed Good, without presenting evidence, as a “domestic terrorist” or “paid agitator” – while video of her confrontation with Ross appears to show her trying to steer her vehicle away from him when she was shot three times in the face…

The resignations are the latest in a flow of departures from the civil rights division since Donald Trump began his second term a year earlier. In May, the Guardian reported that more than 250 attorneys had left, been reassigned or accepted a deferred resignation offer since January, a roughly 70% reduction.

Dhillon, a former Republican official in California, and an election denier who promoted the “big lie” that Trump’s 2020 election defeat was fraudulent, was confirmed by the Senate in April. She worked quickly to realign the division’s priorities away from its longstanding work tackling discrimination and protecting the rights of marginalized groups and towards Trump’s political goals, including exposing voter fraud, which is rare, and focusing on anti-transgender issues.

“I don’t think it’s an overstatement to see this as the end of the division as we’ve known it,” a civil rights division attorney told the Guardian at the time.

Subsequently, in September, the online news outlet Notus reported that only two lawyers remained out of 36 at the justice department’s public integrity unit assigned to investigations of corrupt politicians and law enforcement.

What you need to know about Harmeet Dhillon, the lawyer appointed by Trump to lead the Civil Rights Division, is that she spent years litigating against civil rights law. Thus, she is just what you would expect: a prosecutor ready and willing to investigate the murder victim, but not the murderer.

Categories Civil Rights, Justice, Shame

Trump Says Civil Rights Laws Discriminate Against Whites

By dianeravitch
January 12, 2026 //
14

In an interview with The New York Times, President Trump explained his hostility towards the civil rights laws meant to end discrimination against racial minorities and women and to expand opportunities for them in the workplace and in education.

He believes that civil rights protections have hurt white men. That is the rationale for his aggressive campaign to purge policies of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) from all institutions receiving federal funding.

Trump is indifferent to the long history of slavery, racism, Jim Crow laws, bigotry, and segregation that harmed minorities, especially African Americans. He is equally indifferent to the long history of sexism and misogny that restricted the careers of women.

Erica Green reports:

President Trump said in an interview that he believed civil rights-era protections resulted in white people being “very badly treated,” his strongest indication that the concept of “reverse discrimination” is driving his aggressive crusade against diversity policies.

Speaking to The New York Times on Wednesday, Mr. Trump echoed grievances amplified by Vice President JD Vance and other top officials who in recent weeks have urged white men to file federal complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

When asked whether protections that began in the 1960s, spurred by the passage of the Civil Rights Act, had resulted in discrimination against white men, Mr. Trump said he believed “a lot of people were very badly treated.” 

“White people were very badly treated, where they did extremely well and they were not invited to go into a university to college,” he said, an apparent reference to affirmative action in college admissions. “So I would say in that way, I think it was unfair in certain cases.”

He added: “I think it was also, at the same time, it accomplished some very wonderful things, but it also hurt a lot of people — people that deserve to go to a college or deserve to get a job were unable to get a job. So it was, it was a reverse discrimination.”

Trump’s approach is calibrated to appeal to white men who blame their grievances on laws that protect racial minorities and women.

Carrying out Mr. Trump’s agenda is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was formed in 1965 under the Civil Rights Act. The commission’s chair, Andrea Lucas, issued a striking video message last month underlining the agency’s new posture.

“Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex?” Ms. Lucas said in the video posted on X. “You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws. Contact the E.E.O.C. as soon as possible. Time limits are typically strict for filing a claim.”

“The E.E.O.C. is committed to identifying, attacking, and eliminating ALL forms of race and sex discrimination — including against white male applicants and employees,” she said.

In the video, Ms. Lucas pointed white men to the commission’s F.A.Q. on “D.E.I.-related discrimination,” which notes that D.E.I. “a broad term that is not defined” in the Civil Rights Act.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the nation’s primary litigator of workplace discrimination, and for decades has been a resource for minorities, women and other groups who have historically faced discrimination. But Ms. Lucas has endeavored to make it one of Mr. Trump’s most powerful tools against D.E.I., with a particular focus on remedying perceived harms against white men.

Trump has combatted DEI in universities by threatening to cut off the funding of institutions that implement affirmative action for students and faculty and that have programs to encourage minorities.

Categories Bigotry, Civil Rights, Disruption, Equity, Ethics, Extremism, Funding, History, Racism, Segregation, Trump

ProPublica: The Zealots Who Hate Public Schools Now Work in the U.S. Department of Education

By dianeravitch
January 8, 2026 //
2

ProPublica published this article by Megan O’Matz and Jennifer Smith Richards in October, but I somehow missed it. It’s still relevant because it nails the personnel that Trump and wrestling entrepreneur Linda MacMahon installed at the U.S. Department of Education. The common thread among them: they want to privatize public schools, and they want to emphasize the Christian mission of schools.

It starts:

The department is not behaving like an agency that is simply winding down. Even as McMahon has shrunk the Department of Education, she’s operated in what she calls “a parallel universe” to radically shift how children will learn for years to come. The department’s actions and policies reflect a disdain for public schools and a desire to dismantle that system in favor of a range of other options — private, Christian and virtual schools or homeschooling.

Over just eight months, department officials have opened a $500 million tap for charter schools, a huge outlay for an option that often draws children from traditional public schools. They have repeatedly urged states to spend federal money for poor and at-risk students at private schools and businesses. And they have threatened penalties for public schools that offer programs to address historic inequities for Black or Hispanic students….

To carry out her vision, McMahon has brought on at least 20 political appointees from ultraconservative think tanks and advocacy groups eager to de-emphasize public schools, which have educated students for roughly 200 years.

Among them is top adviser Lindsey Burke, a longtime policy director at The Heritage Foundation and the lead author of the education section in Project 2025’s controversial agenda for the Trump administration.

In analyzing dozens of hours of audio and video footage of public and private speaking events for McMahon’s appointees, as well as their writings, ProPublica found that a recurring theme is the desire to enable more families to leave public schools. This includes expanding programs that provide payment — in the form of debit cards, which Burke has likened to an “Amazon gift card” — to parents to cobble together customized educational plans for their children. Instead of relying on public schools, parents would use their allotted tax dollars on a range of costs: private school tuition, online learning, tutors, transportation and music lessons.

Although more than 80% of American students attend public schools, Burke predicted that within five years, a majority would be enrolled in private choice options. The impact of their policies, she believes, will lead to the closure of many public schools.

Accountability, once a watchword for conservatives, won’t be needed in the future that McMahon and Burke are building.

As tax dollars are reallocated from public school districts and families abandon those schools to learn at home or in private settings, the new department officials see little need for oversight. Instead, they would let the marketplace determine what’s working using tools such as Yelp-like reviews from parents. Burke has said she is against “any sort of regulation….

Advocates for public schools consider them fundamental to American democracy. Providing public schools is a requirement in every state constitution.

Families in small and rural communities tend to rely more heavily on public education. They are less likely than families in cities to have private and charter schools nearby. And unlike private schools, public school districts don’t charge tuition. Public schools enroll local students regardless of academic or physical ability, race, gender or family income; private schools can selectively admit students.

Karma Quick-Panwala, a leader at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, which advocates for disabled students, said she wants to be optimistic. “But,” she added, “I’m very fearful that we are headed towards a less inclusive, less diverse and more segregated public school setting.”

McMahon has welcomedeaders of extremist rightwing groups into the Department, like Moms for Liberty and Parents Defending Education.

Little attention was paid to the conservative education activists in the front row [at McMahon’s confirmation hearings] from Moms for Liberty, which has protested school curricula and orchestrated book bans nationwide; Defending Education (formerly Parents Defending Education), which has sued districts to fight what it calls liberal indoctrination; and the America First Policy Institute, co-founded by McMahon after the first Trump administration.

Now two people who once served at Defending Education have been named to posts in the Education Department, and leaders from Moms for Liberty have joined McMahon for roundtables and other official events. In addition, at least nine people from the America First Policy Institute have been hired in the department.

AFPI’s sweeping education priorities include advocating for school vouchers and embedding biblical principles in schools. It released a policy paper in 2023, titled “Biblical Foundations,” that sets out the organization’s objective to end the separation of church and state and “plant Jesus in every space.”

The paper rejects the idea that society has a collective responsibility to educate all children equally and argues that “the Bible makes it clear that it is parents alone who shoulder the responsibility for their children.” It frames public schooling as failing, with low test scores and “far-left social experiments, such as gender fluidity…”

AFPI and the other two nonprofit groups sprang up only after the 2020 election. Together they drew in tens of millions of dollars through a well-coordinated right-wing network that had spent decades advocating for school choice and injecting Christianity into schools.

Ultrawealthy supporters include right-wing billionaire Richard Uihlein, who, through a super PAC, gave $336,000 to Moms for Liberty’s super PAC from October 2023 through July 2024.

Defending Education and AFPI received backing from some of the same prominent conservative foundations and trusts, including ones linked to libertarian-minded billionaire Charles Koch and to conservative legal activist Leonard Leo, an architect of the effort to strip liberal influence from the courts, politics and schools.

Maurice T. Cunningham, a now-retired associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, studied the origins and connections of parents’ rights groups, finding in 2023 that the funders — a small set of billionaires and Christian nationalists — had similar goals.

The groups want “to undermine teachers unions, protect their wealthy donors from having to contribute their fair share in taxes to strengthen public schools, and provide profit opportunities through school privatization,” he concluded. The groups say they are merely trying to advocate for parents and for school choice. They didn’t discuss their relationship with donors when contacted by ProPublica.

These groups and their supporters now have access to the top levers of government, either through official roles in the agency or through the administration’s adoption of their views.

Tiffany Justice, one of the co-founders of Moms for Liberty, is optimistic about the plans of MacMahon:

Asked what percentage of children she imagines should be in public schools going forward, Justice, who is now with The Heritage Foundation’s political advocacy arm, told ProPublica: “I hope zero. I hope to get to zero….”

McMahon’s tenure also has been marked by an embrace of religion in schools. She signaled that priority when she appointed Meg Kilgannon to a top post in her office.

Kilgannon had worked in the department as director of a faith initiative during the first Trump term and once was part of the Family Research Council, an evangelical think tank that opposes abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.

She has encouraged conservative Christians to become involved in what she’s described as “a spiritual war” over children and what they’re being taught in public schools.

Open the link to read the article in full.

Categories Bigotry, Charter Schools, Civil Rights, Curriculum, Disruption, Education Industry, Extremism, For-Profit, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Privatization, Religion, Vouchers

Heritage Foundation Staffers Resign to Join Pence

By dianeravitch
December 26, 2025 //
7

This is an important development. Our nation needs at least two sensible political parties. A two-party system with vigorous third parties is healthy for our democracy.

When one of our two major parties is captured by an extremists cult, it’s a very bad sign. When that cult revels in cutting ties with our historic allies, in brutalizing immigrants and even citizens who look like immigrants (brown skin color), in sending troops to American cities, in killing people on boats that might or might not be transporting drugs instead interdicting them, in abandoning civil rights laws, and in treating the president as a king to be obeyed and worshipped, that cult is not a normal participant in American politics because it is not bound by the Constitution.

Thus, in my opinion, it is very good news that sane conservatives are abandoning the Heritage Foundation–whose leader was the architect of Project 2025–and joining forces with Mike Pence.

Pence is a conservative through and through, and I disagree with him on most issues. But in 2020, he refused Trump’s direct order to join the insurrection by refusing to certify Biden’s election. Pence certified Biden’s election and was reviled by MAGA for following the Constitution, not Trump. They chanted “Hang Mike Pence” on January 6, 2021, and even built a scaffold outside the U.S. Capitol. Trump shrugged with indifference, and the mob searched for Pence.

Politico wrote about the splintering at the Heritage Foundation.

More than a dozen staffers at The Heritage Foundation are leaving the conservative think tank to join a nonprofit led by former Vice President Mike Pence as the embattled organization continues to reel from ongoing turmoil.

Advancing American Freedom — founded by Pence in 2021 “to defend liberty and advance policies that build a stronger America” — announced Monday that three senior officials who led the legal, economic and data teams at Heritage would be joining the group next year, along with several members of their teams.

This is good news for the conservative Republican Party and good news for our democracy. Genuine conservatives can’t abide the extremism of MAGA.

I’ll be watching to see what Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger do in the future.

Categories Civil Rights, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Pence, Republicans, Trump

Jan Resseger: How the Trump Administration Undermines the Rights of Students and Teachers, Part 2.

By dianeravitch
November 21, 2025 //
2

Jan Resseger is a determined and purposeful writer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Civil Rights, Courage, Democracy, Education Reform

Trump’s Shocking Destruction of the Department of Justice

By dianeravitch
November 17, 2025 //
3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article documents the early stages of fascism.

Categories Civil Rights, Corruption, Democracy, Disruption, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Injustice, Justice, Trump

Which Federal Agencies Are Laying Off Employees?

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2025 //
5

The website Government Executive reports on the draconian cuts that Trump imposed on federal agencies. These cuts were made without regard to the contribution, experience, or value of employees. Some agencies were destroyed, such as foreign aid. Foreign aid always had bipartisan support, yet Republicans in Congress remained silent as Trump and his sidekick Elon Musk cancelled programs that saved lives.

The devastating cuts in highly qualified career civil servants will be felt for many years. Their loss will not make the federal government more efficient. Understaffing will make it less effective. You will notice that a particular target of job cuts was any office engaged in civil rights protections.

In his confirmation hearings to be director of the Office of Management and Budget, one of the most powerful jobs in the federal government, Russell Vought made clear that he wanted to cripple the workforce.

He said:

“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work … because they are increasingly viewed as the villains.” 

“We want to put them in trauma.” 

Russell Vought organized Project 2025 while working at the rightwing Heritage Foundaion. He is not only a libertarian who wants to disembowel the “deep state,” he describes himself as a Christian nationalist. Vought’s goal–and Trump’s as well–is not to streamline the federal government but to gut it.

Government Executive reports:

The Supreme Court earlier this year has allowed the Trump administration to resume mass reductions in force, though large swaths of the federal government are once again blocked from issuing layoffs under a new court order. 

Many agencies have sent out RIF notices in the previous 10 months, with a new wave commencing during the government shutdown. These layoffs are separate from the mass firings of probationary employees in the early months of the administration, which led to the removal of at least 25,000 workers. See our tracker of those firings here.

An executive order and subsequent guidance in February from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management called for the “maximum elimination” of federal agency functions not required by law. As a starting point for the cuts, OMB and OPM said, agencies should focus on employees whose jobs are not required in statute and who face furloughs in government shutdowns—typically around one-third of the federal workforce, or 700,000 employees.

Several agencies have eliminated offices wholesale and slashed their regional offices across the country. The administration laid off around 4,000 people on Oct. 10 across seven agencies. The cuts followed through on a threat from President Trump and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought to inflict pain on the federal workforce as a consequence of the government shutdown. 

Those RIFs, and forthcoming cuts Trump and Vought have promised, are now largely paused under a temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge in California. Her order now extends to agency components with employees in the American Federation of Government Employees; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; the National Federation of Federal Employees; the National Association of Government Employees; the National Treasury Employees Union; and the Service Employees International Union.

Here are the departments and agencies where Government Executive has confirmed RIFs have taken place or are about to occur. In some cases, the plans are in flux and subject to change. We will update as we learn more. More in-depth reporting is linked where available.

Agriculture Department: USDA is planning to dramatically slash its headquarters workforce through relocations into new regional hubs and, potentially, layoffs. Most employees will be given the option to either take a reassignment to one of the new hubs the department is standing up or separate from federal service. As the department cuts leases and functions across the country, regional staff will also be impacted, though some will have the opportunity to relocate to the new hubs. USDA will offload one of its two Washington headquarters buildings and consolidate dozens of additional sites. All told, 2,600 Washington-based are expected to be relocated. The department has shed 15,000 employees through its separation incentives.

Commerce Department: Commerce was originally seeking to cut its workforce by 20%, or nearly 10,000 employees, by using attrition, incentives and other measures to get to that level without RIFs. In October, however, Commerce sent RIF notices to 600 employees, including those at the Patent and Trademark Office, Census Bureau and Minority Business Development Agency. Those cuts are currently paused pending the temporary restraining order. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: CFPB first issued RIFs for approximately 1,500 personnel, roughly 88% of its workforce on April 17, while announcing 50% cuts to its inspection operations of financial services companies. Employees were told they would be locked out by 6 p.m. on April 18 and would be separated from federal service by June 16, barring qualifications for other available positions. A federal judge on April 18 paused the RIFs at CFPB, which led to the layoff notices being officially rescinded. An appeals court subsequently ruled that the RIFs could proceed, but paused their implementation while a union sought an en banc hearing before the entire appellate panel. 

Defense Department: Defense said it would use RIFs or use other incentives to drive 5% to 8% of its civilian workforce, or as many as 61,000 employees, out of government. The department announced in September it successfully hit that target using various incentives. 

Education Department: Education has laid off one-thirds of its workforce, or about 1,300 employees. The notices went out on March 11 and the department closed its offices on March 12 for the day. Education previously offered buyouts of up to $25,000 to most of its employees, who had until March 3 at 11:59 p.m. to accept the offer. About 300 employees accepted those and combined with other voluntary separations, Education’s total workforce was set to be about half the size it was before Trump took office. In October, Education sent layoff notices to an additional 465 employees, which are currently paused pending the temporary restraining order.  

Environmental Protection Agency: Staff in the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights and Regional Environmental Justice Divisions on April 21 were informed that a RIF will take effect on July 31.

The RIFs began to take shape in March when Administrator Lee Zeldin moved to eliminate the environmental justice office and divisions as well as the Office of Inclusive Excellence. Prior to their shutterings, EPA said it had put about 170 employees in those offices on administrative leave.

In July, EPA announced it was eliminating its Office of Research and Development, leading to a RIF of potentially hundreds of employees. All told, the agency said it has slashed its workforce from 16,155 when Trump took office to 12,448. In October, the agency said it would lay off another 30 employees, which are currently paused pending the temporary restraining order. 

Federal Trade Commission: FTC dismissed around a dozen employees on Feb. 28, impacting its Bureau of Competition, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of Public Affairs and Office of Technology. 

General Services Administration: GSA has sent RIF notices to some employees in its Office of Human Resources Management and Office of Customer Experience and, initially, issued severe cuts to its Public Building Service.

  • GSA has also eliminated 18F, and laid off virtually all employees there. 
  • On March 3, GSA began widespread RIFs focused on its Public Buildings Service. Many regions across the country were impacted. The agency subsequently canceled most of those layoffs, however, and brought the employees back to work. 

Health and Human Services Department: HHS has eliminated 20,000 jobs from its workforce of 82,000, the department announced earlier this year. It sent RIF notices to 10,000 employees and used attrition for the remaining 10,000. As part of those initial layoffs, the Food and Drug Administration shed 3,500 employees, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cut about 2,400 employees and NIH has sent RIF notices to more than 1,200 workers. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services laid off 300 staff. 

Eliminated offices included those tracking cancer rates among firefighters, providing veterinary care caring for lab animals, managing the nation’s network of health centers that provide care to 31 million Americans, training new drug reviewers, collecting data on opioid on abuse and leading teams researching infectious diseases, among many others. Following the Supreme Court decision, HHS proceeded removing most of those impacted by RIFs on July 14. Employees at CDC, FDA’s tobacco office and Head Start remain on the rolls due to an injunction in a separate case brought by a group of states. 

HHS, primarily at CDC, has brought back some employees deemed essential to carry out mission-critical functions. 

The department’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization laid off at least 25 people at HHS headquarters and different components such as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention on April 7. The cuts leave only executive director Shannon Jackson remaining in the office.

HHS shuttered six regional offices in its Office of General Counsel, bringing the agency from 10 OGC offices down to four. Those will be located in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Kansas City, Mo., and Denver. Impacted staff—about 200 of the 300 in the regional offices—were laid off, according to two employees affected by the changes and informed of the department’s plans.

In October, HHS laid off around another 1,000 employees. The haphazard nature of the RIFs led to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reverse more than half of the original 1,300 notices it originally sent. Additional cuts were made at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health and Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response. Those cuts are currently paused pending the temporary restraining order. 

Homeland Security Department: DHS officials issued RIF notices to all employees in its Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, as well as its Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman and Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman on March 21. The roughly 150 people in the CRCL office have been placed on administrative leave, pending their terminations, as have the approximately 40 employees at CIS Ombudsman and more than 120 employees at OIDO. The department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis was planning to reduce its staffing by around 75%, cutting its workforce from some 1,000 full-time employees to 275, but as of July 10, those plans have been paused.

In October, DHS initiated RIFs for 176 employees at its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. A spokesperson said the cuts, currently paused by the TRO, would be “getting CISA back on mission” after the Biden administration led it astray.

Housing and Urban Development Department: HUD has issued RIF notices to all employees in the Office of Field Policy and Management at the General Schedule-13 level and below, according to a memo obtained by Government Executive. The employees were set to be terminated May 18. In October, HUD sent RIF notices to 442 employees in its Office of Community Planning and Development, the regional offices of its Office of Federal Housing and Equal Opportunity and its Public and Indian Housing office. Those cuts are currently paused pending the temporary restraining order. 

Interior Department: DOI is planning sweeping reductions to its administrative and support function workforce and has consolidated related offices away from component agencies. Interior has folded areas such as IT, communications, finance, human resources and contracting into the central part of the department, rather than components such as the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and others maintaining their own cadres of staff to provide those services. That will be followed by widespread and significant reductions in force to employees in those offices, leading in some cases to 50% cuts to the relevant workforces. The consolidations began in early May and RIFs were expected to follow in the coming weeks, but those actions were held up in federal court. Thousands of layoffs were expected. 

In October, Interior laid out with specificity where 2,000 RIFs were planned across its bureaus. Significantly more cuts were expected, though those details remained under wraps. Most of those cuts are currently paused pending the TRO, though Interior left the door open to proceeding with some of the cuts not impacted by the court’s order.

Labor Department: DOL had planned layoffs at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, but on Aug. 12, it reversed those reduction in force notices. A department spokesperson said that DOL reduced its total workforce by 20% through voluntary separation initiatives and attrition.

NASA: NASA began sending RIF notices to employees on March 10. In an email to staff, acting Administrator Janet Petro told staff it was a “phased reduction in force,” meaning more layoffs are expected in the coming days and weeks. She called the cuts “difficult adjustments” impacting “valued members of our team,” but said the agency was viewing the changes as “an opportunity to reshape our workforce.” NASA has so far laid off only around 20 employees by closing the Office of Technology, Policy and Strategy, the Office of the Chief Scientist and employees working on diversity issues. NASA’s RIF and reorganization plan is still forthcoming, Petro said, though senior officials have told employees they are hopeful to avoid additional layoffs even as they pursue significant workforce reductions. 

Office of Personnel Management: OPM, which is spearheading the workforce reduction effort across government, has sent RIF notices to at least its Office of Procurement Operations and communications staff. Around 80 people were let go. In late February, OPM virtually eliminated its Human Capital Data Management and Modernization office. Several dozen employees received RIF notices and only 10 were spared. OPM has also laid off employees from its privacy and Freedom of Information Act office. OPM has also eliminated its Chief Technology Office. The agency also issued RIFs to the entirety of its Congressional, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs office staff on April 16.

Peace Corps: The Peace Corps is expected shed 50% of its domestic staff in mid-May, according to two employees briefed on the plans. Some offices will see as many as three-quarters of its staff laid off. The agency has around 900 U.S.-based direct hire positions, though given the existing vacancies around 300 cuts are expected to occur between RIFs and incentivized departures. Employees said recruiting efforts, training programs, support functions and security and health services for for deployed volunteers will also struggle to continue, employees said. 

Small Business Administration: SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler told employees in March the agency would shed 2,700 of its 6,500 employees. In April, it issued RIF notices to large number of employees in its COVID-19 loan servicing center. It subsequently laid off employees in the customer service center for disaster victims. One impacted employee said impacted communities will now either get rushed off the phone or not get assisted at all, while also facing longer wait times. “The ones being hurt by these cuts are the ones that truly do need assistance,” the employee said. 

Social Security Administration: SSA has shuttered two offices—its Office of Transformation and Office of Civil Rights—and initially placed those workers on administration leave. SSA’s former acting Administrator Leland Dudek has said he planned to lay off 7,000 employees in total, according to three employees familiar with the plans. 

State Department: After much delay, the State Department on July 11 laid off around 1,350 employees through a mass RIF. All told, State is expected to shed around 3,000 workers as part of its reorganization that will see more than 300 offices eliminated or consolidated. Around 1,100 civil service staff and 250 foreign service officers were be impacted. Impacted offices included the Bureau of Cyberspace and Policy, Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Bureau of Energy Resources, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Multilateral Trade Affairs office, Office of Agriculture Policy and others. All employees at the refugee resettlement office and the refugee processing center were subject to RIFs.

Transportation Department: Secretary Sean Duffy said in a department town hall that reductions in force would take place at the end of May, though that timeline was pushed back by original the court injunction. The number of employees who will be laid off depends on how many workers participate in the second round of the deferred resignation program. Those cuts have yet to materialize. 

Treasury Department:

  • The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reported on July 18 that the tax agency’s workforce has decreased by 25% with nearly 25,390 employees taking deferred resignation, another departure incentive or otherwise separating and 294 workers being terminated in RIFs. Layoffs affected the Office of Civil Rights and Compliance, Taxpayer Experience Office and Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Taxpayer Services. The Trump administration was expected to slash as many as 20,000 jobs from IRS.
  • Around April 8, the Bureau of Fiscal Service began notifying employees who service bonds for investors that they would be shuttering their offices and outsourcing that work. Hundreds of employees were part of the reductions.
  • In October, Treasury sent RIF notices to 1,446 employees. Much those were focused on the Internal Revenue Service and the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, though the cuts are paused pending the resolution of the temporary restraining order. 

U.S. Agency for International Development: In the midst of a court battle, nearly all staffers at USAID were laid off under reduction in force procedures on either July 1 or Sept. 2. The Trump administration is seeking to largely fold the agency into the State Department, which will hire a few hundred of the thousands of affected employees. 

Veterans Affairs Department: VA initially suggested it would slash its workforce to fiscal 2019 levels, which would mark a reduction of more than 80,000 employees. RIFs were expected to begin this summer. VA Secretary Doug Collins announced in July, however, that the department would no longer pursue widespread layoffs and instead cut the department by 30,000 employeesthrough attrition and separation incentives. Since 2019, VA has gone on a hiring spree to accommodate the millions of veterans newly eligible for care and benefits. 

Small agencies set for elimination: Trump has signed an executive order to eliminate to the extent allowed by law seven small agencies. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service has sent RIF notices to virtually all of its staff, as has much of the U.S. Agency for Global Media. The Institute of Museum and Library Services subsequently followed suit, as did the National Endowment for the Humanities. The Commerce Department is preparing for RIFs within its Minority Business Development Agency. Trump’s order also called for the elimination of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in the Smithsonian Institution, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Treasury Department’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. Many of those actions are currently being litigated in federal court. 

Categories Civil Rights, Cruelty, Democracy, Deregulation, Extremism, Insane, Trump
« Older Entries