Archives for category: Deregulation
« Older Entries

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

Trump and McMahon Wipe Out Special Education Staff in Education Department

By dianeravitch
October 16, 2025 //
9

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon took advantage of the federal government shutdown to impose additional cuts to the Department of Education. The deepest cuts were imposed on the Office for Civil Rights. Another office that was hard hit was the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

During the draconian budget-cutting days of Elon Musk and DOGE, the Education Department’s personnel was almost cut in half, from 4,000 to 2,400. DOE is one of the smallest Departments in the federal government. The latest reduction-in-force cuts terminated the jobs of 466 employees of the Department, including the remaining 20 or so employees overseeing special education programs.

Project 2025 called for all funding streams–especially Title I and special education–to be turned over to the states as block grants, which the states could spend as they choose. Eliminating federal oversight is a significant step towards that goal.

The Education Law Center of Pennsylvania released this statement:

Widespread layoffs in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) have effectively eviscerated federal enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which requires that the U.S. Department of Education bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that local school districts and charter schools comply with special education laws.

OSERS, which includes the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), provides essential guidance, reviews and monitors state compliance with federal special education laws, and issues corrective action to states. The impact of its dismantling cannot be overstated: without staff to oversee legal compliance and equitably distribute federal funds, children with disabilities will lack critical federal protections, and become more likely to be excluded and left behind. The Department currently administers more than $15 billion in IDEA funds for special education programs nationwide; OSERS provided essential guidance to ensure effective and equitable use of those funds.

The deep slashing of OSERS’ staff is part of a broad effort by this administration to dismantle the Department of Education (“ED”) and unlawfully flout Congress’ authority; in this case, by abandoning enforcement required under IDEA, a law enacted 50 years ago next month. The IDEA guarantees all children with disabilities access to a free and appropriate education and importantly, this landmark legislation remains the law of the land, requiring continued compliance by states, school districts, and charter schools.

Schools remain legally mandated to follow both federal and state special education laws.  This includes identifying and serving children with disabilities, protecting them from discrimination, and ensuring that they are educated in the least restrictive environment alongside their non-disabled peers. Importantly, Pennsylvania’s Department of Education must continue to ensure schools’ compliance with federal and state special education laws, which may now require increased oversight.  

ELC-PA urges federal legislators to push back against this unlawful dismantling of OSERS and ED. Federal enforcement and oversight is needed to sustain key civil rights protections for children with disabilities. Under our Constitution, only Congress has the authority to create or eliminate federal agencies. These unlawful mass layoffs and dismantling of the Department undertaken by the executive branch will substantially diminish federal enforcement of disability laws and is a devasting setback for students with disabilities who thrive in supportive, inclusive classrooms. Without ED’s enforcement authority, state agencies that fail to meet their legal obligations could face fewer consequences and be less likely to undertake systemic reforms. However, parents will continue to bring administrative complaints and federal court actions against schools and the state to uphold the rights of their children.

We look to Congress and the courts to reject the administration’s efforts to undermine the rights of students with disabilities, restore robust federal oversight, and reaffirm the nation’s commitment to educational equity and to all students with disabilities. The time to push back is now. 

*****************************************

The Education Law Center-PA (ELC-PA) is a nonprofit, legal advocacy organization with offices in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, dedicated to ensuring that all children in Pennsylvania have access to a quality public education. Through legal representation, impact litigation, community engagement, and policy advocacy, ELC advances the rights of underserved children, including children living in poverty, children of color, children in the foster care and juvenile justice systems, children with disabilities, English learners, LGBTQ+ students, and children experiencing homelessness. For more information, visit elc-pa.org.

Lindsay Wagner, Director of Communications
(Pronouns: she/her)
Education Law Center-PA | 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 1900A, Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 701-4264 | (215) 772-3125 (fax) | lwagner@elc-pa.org

Categories Cruelty, Deregulation, Ethics, Evil, Special Education, Trump

Florida: “We Have Accountability for Food Stamps, Why Not for School Vouchers?”

By dianeravitch
September 17, 2025 //
9

Scott Maxwell is my favorite opinion writer at The Orlando Sentinel. He always makes sense, in a state led by a Governor and Leguslature that make no sense at all.

In this column, he asks a straightforward question: Why is there no accountability for school vouchers? Why are taxpayers shelling out money for substandard schools? Why is money diverted from public schools to pay for schools where the curriculum is based on the Bible, not facts?

Maxwell writes:

Florida recently joined about a dozen states in passing new rules that say participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, can’t use their vouchers on junk food.

I think that makes sense to most people. This program, after all, is supposed to provide “nutrition” to people in need, most of whom are children, elderly or people with disabilities.
Basically, if taxpayers are providing $330 a month for basic food needs, that money shouldn’t be used on Red Bull and Oreos.

So now let’s take that a step further.

Taxpayer money also shouldn’t be used to send students to the junk-food equivalent of school — places that hire “teachers” without degrees, use factually flawed curriculum or that hand out A’s to every kid, regardless of what they actually learn, just to make their parents feel better.

Just like with food stamps, taxpayers have a right to know that the money they’re providing for schools is actually funding a quality education.

Yet in Florida that is not the case. Here, the voucher-school system is the Wild West with a lack of accountability and scary things funded with your tax dollars.

The Orlando Sentinel has documented this mess for years through its “Schools without Rules” investigation that found taxpayer-funded voucher schools where:


• “Teachers” lacked degrees or any kind of basic teaching certification
• Finances were so disastrous that schools actually shut down in the middle of the school year, stranding families and students
• Science classes taught students that dinosaurs roamed the earth alongside man, and history lessons claimed slavery and segregation weren’t really all that bad

• Administrators refused to admit students with disabilities or who had gay parents
• Parents filed complaints that included “Cleaning lady substituting for teacher,” “They don’t provide lunch and they don’t even have a place to eat” and “I don’t see any evidence of academics”

I don’t care how pro-school choice you are, tax dollars shouldn’t fund that kind of nonsense.

Some of these fly-by-night schools set up in strip malls seem to thrive because they tell parents what they want to hear — that their kids who were struggling in public schools magically became straight-A students at voucher schools with little to no standards or legitimate measures of success.

Well, that’s the educational equivalent of junk food. And taxpayers wouldn’t fund that kind of nonsense if the state enacted basic accountability measures.

Namely, all voucher-eligible schools should be required to:

• Publish graduation rates and nationally accepted test scores
• Hire teachers who are certified or at least have a college degree
• Disclose all the curriculum being taught
• Ban discrimination

Most good schools already do this. Think about it: what kind of reputable school wouldn’t agree to hire qualified teachers? Or wouldn’t want the public to see what kind of test scores their students produce?

If you want to send your kid to a school that’s unwilling to clear those ground-level hurdles, you shouldn’t expect taxpayers to fund it.
Similarly, if you want to run a school that refuses to serve kids in wheelchairs or who are gay, you shouldn’t fund your discrimination with money that belongs to the people against whom you’re discriminating.

In Florida, some of the worst voucher schools are faith-based. But so are some of the best. Parents and taxpayers deserve to see the difference — the test scores that show whether students are actually learning.

Many faith-based schools embrace science and history. But some try to replace proven facts with their own beliefs or opinions, using “biology” books that claim evolution data is false and “history” books that try to put sunny spins on slavery and segregation.

The people who defend — and profit off — Florida’s unregulated voucher system usually cite “freedom” and “parental rights” as a justification for unfettered choice. But you know good and well that virtually every other taxpayer-funded system has sensible guardrails.

You can’t take Medicaid money to a witch doctor or a psychic “healer.” And just like we don’t give parents the “choice” to use SNAP vouchers to buy their kids Snicker bars, they don’t deserve the “freedom” to take money meant to provide a quality education to a school that can prove it’s providing one.


Basic transparency and accountability measures are needed for any program to be effective. So whenever you hear anyone protesting them, you have to wonder what it is they don’t want you to see.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Corruption, Curriculum, Deregulation, Disruption, Extremism, Florida, Funding, Lies, Privatization, Propaganda, Vouchers

The Biggest Liar in Texas

By dianeravitch
September 12, 2025 //
3

Michelle H. Davis writes a blog called “Lone Star Left,” where she chronicles the usually corrupt politics of Texas. In this post, she eviscerates Governor Abbott, who loves to brag about the economic success of his state. She calls him out for ignoring the people who are nott part of the state’s prosperity.

She writes:

Today, our feckless leader gave a State-of-the-State Address at the Baylor Club in Waco. Now, if you didn’t know, the Baylor Club is a prestigious private social club nestled within McLane Stadium, offering floor-to-ceiling panoramic views of the stadium, downtown Waco, and the Brazos River.

While many Texans are choosing between groceries and insulin, Abbott delivers big promises from an elite club perched over McLane Stadium. That should tell you all you need to know. 

It was about an hour long, so I watched it for you. Below, I’ve broken down everything he said and what he conveniently left out. 

He began the speech by bragging about having dinner with Governor Glenn Youngkin and then told him that Texas’ budget for building roads was $146 billion. He claimed Youngkin dropped his spoon, saying it was bigger than Virginia’s entire budget. He went on to say that Texas had the “largest road building fund in America.” 

It’s only partly true. According to TXDOT’s 10-year plan, we have allocated about $101.6 billion for projects and $45 billion for maintenance. But this road-building bonanza feels stupid without high-speed trains. Seriously, what are we doing? 

Trains would alleviate traffic, carbon emissions, congestion, and get us from Dallas to Houston in just 90 minutes. It’s faster and greener than driving, but we’re investing all our money in roads? 

Modern marvel, or not, no one likes this shit: 

But Republicans do it all for the fossil fuel industry. 

In related news, ConocoPhillips, headquartered in Houston, plans to lay off 25% of its global workforce. 

Then, he stoked the bigwigs in Waco for a little bit. 

Abbott discussed Waco’s significant economic success, noting its high job numbers and record-low unemployment. 

The unemployment rate in Waco in July was 4.1. In DFW, it was 4.0. In the Austin area, it was 3.5. So, really, it’s comparable to Texas. 

What he failed to mention at this invite-only event was that the poverty rate in Waco is about 24.3%, nearly double the state’s average. Or that in some neighborhoods in Waco, it’s as high as 38%. Meanwhile, 57% of Black children in Waco live below the poverty line.

And that’s the optics, right there. While Abbott spoke from his panoramic perch, over half of Waco’s Black children struggle to make ends meet. This is the story of what Texas has become under Republican control. 

It wouldn’t be a boastful Abbott speech if he didn’t brag about Texas’ economy. 

He always does this. 

Texas is the #1 state for doing business.

Texas is the #1 state for economic projects.

Texas is the #1 state for economic development.

Texas is the #1 state for exports.

Texas has a GDP $2.7 trillion.

But he never talks about how we’re the worst for basic health. Or how we have the most uninsured adults in America. Texas sits 43rd for overall child well-being. And 22% of Texas kids are hungry. In fact, over 5 million Texans don’t know where their next meal is coming from. He also forgot to mention that there’s a housing insecurity crisis, and that Texas cities rank the worst for air quality.

They wine and dine behind glass walls and chandeliers, as Abbott brags to the wealthy. The Baylor Club is a fortress of privilege where the powerful toast each other on gold plates, high above the city streets. 

Down below, children go to bed hungry, their bellies gnawing at them while Abbott gloats about GDP. Senior citizens, the same ones who built this state with their hands and backs, are being taxed out of their homes, cast onto the streets, the newest members of the unsheltered community.

How could you hear that and not burn with anger?…

Then, Abbott told the biggest, most monstrous lie of them all. 

I had to clip this 30-second video for you to see it. Otherwise, you might not believe a whopper this big. 

Abbott claimed that since the 2021 storm (Uri), they have bolstered the Texas electric grid, and it has remained perfect. He went on to say that since 2021, no Texan has lost power due to a deficiency in the grid. 

This is flat-out false. This is such a fucking stupid lie, do I even need to fact-check it? 

Ask the 2.3 million CenterPoint customers in Houston who lost power for over a week after Hurricane Beryl in July 2024. Or the nearly 1 million Texans left in the dark by the Houston derecho just two months earlier in May 2024. Families sweltered in the heat, elderly neighbors died waiting for oxygen refills, and Abbott wants to call that a “perfect” grid?

What he’s really doing is splitting hairs. ERCOT didn’t order rolling blackouts in those disasters. The distribution system collapsed. In other words, the wires and poles failed instead of the generators. But tell that to the family sitting in the dark with spoiled food and no air conditioning. To everyday Texans, it doesn’t matter whether it’s ERCOT or CenterPoint. The lights are off, the fridge is warm, and the Governor is lying.

This isn’t a story of resilience. It’s a story of deregulation, neglect, and profit over people.

Abbott claimed the Legislature made a “generational investment” in water. 

Also, bullshit. We talked about this in June: Did the 89th Legislature Address Texas’ Water Problems?

Voters will decide in November whether or not we make that investment, which will not be nearly enough money to cover the extent of Texas’ water problems, but it’s a start. 

Abbott claimed that they prioritized small businesses with the new “DOGE law.” A spin if there ever was one. It’s a new bureaucratic agency added to the Governor’s office, which will look for “ways to make regulations more effective, streamline the regulatory process, reduce department costs, and increase public access to regulatory information.”

If you followed along with Lone Star Left during the weeks where we watched the Texas budget hearings, you may remember that every Texas agency is running on outdated computer systems (if they aren’t still using paper), they are all understaffed, they are in buildings that are falling apart, and most government employees aren’t even making a livable wage. 

Republicans have already run every inch of this state into the ground, and the idea that they are going to use a new government agency to run it into the ground even further is ludicrous. 

Running our state agencies in such an inefficient, broken-down way doesn’t save money. It raises costs. Outdated systems, paper records, and skeleton crews result in Texans waiting longer for services, errors piling up, and agencies paying more in overtime and contract work to keep the lights on.

Republicans are really bad at governing. 

The human toll is brutal. Employment turnover in some state agencies runs as high as 50%. Think about that, half the workforce gone, year after year. When you’re constantly training new people instead of keeping experienced staff, services collapse. And nowhere is this clearer than in our Health and Human Services agencies.

These are the people who process Medicaid applications, SNAP benefits, and health services for children and seniors. Understaffed offices and burned-out employees mean months-long backlogs. Families in crisis are told to wait for food assistance. Elderly Texans often lack home health care due to a shortage of caseworkers. Disabled children get lost in the system while Abbott’s donors laugh from the Baylor Club balcony.

This is intentional sabotage. Republicans have hollowed out the very agencies that keep Texans alive. Then they use the dysfunction as an excuse to privatize more, deregulate more, and funnel more contracts to their cronies. The suffering of everyday Texans is the plan.

Governor Abbott said the Texas Legislature fully funded public schools. 

The basic allotment (the base per-student funding) sat at $6,160 from 2019 through 2024. 2025’s package adds $8.5B with strings and only a modest BA bump debated (far short of inflation, per district leaders). Many districts still report deficits and cuts. “Fully funded” is another flat-out lie.

But when your audience is a bunch of wealthy CEOs who paid $2,000 a plate to get in to hear you speak, lies like that don’t matter. Surely all of those CEOs are sending their kids to private school, on the taxpayer’s dime, with the shiny new vouchers Mr. Let-Them-Eat-Cake got for all his wealthy donors. 

I don’t know about you, but I’m ready to vote this motherfucker out. 

Every year he lies a little bigger, every year he sells us out a little deeper, and every year the gap between those sipping cocktails at the Baylor Club and those wondering how to feed their kids grows wider.

The truth is, the wealth inequality in Texas right now is more drastic than the wealth inequality in France shortly before their revolution. You know what happened then.

And I’ll leave you with this, from Jean-Jacques Rousseau: 

“When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.”

So let’s be ready. Let’s be angry. And let’s be organized. Because November 2026 is coming, and it’s time to flip this state.

Categories Bigotry, Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Deregulation, Economy, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Funding, Health, Inequality, Poverty, Texas, Vouchers

Trump Strips Protection from 58 Million Acres of Wilderness

By dianeravitch
June 24, 2025 //
32

Henry David Thoreau wrote: “In wildness is the preservation of the world.” Thoreau understood that as humans we need to be nourished by contact with or immersion in the natural world. Environmentalists understand this. They fight the inexorable march of what we call progress, which clear-cuts forest and paves over what once were boundless plains. Today, most of us get into a car and drive for hours to connect to wilderness. And we find solace in those encounters.

Most presidents take pride in the number of acres of wilderness that they have saved for future generations and the number of national monuments they designated to preserve unique natural formations. Not Trump. Trump has been openly hostile to environmental protection and to any measures that reduce the risks of climate change.

Yesterday the administration announced that it was opening up 58 million acres for commercial development.

Lisa Friedman wrote in The New York Times:

The Trump administration said on Monday that it would open up 58 million acres of back country in national forests to road construction and development, removing protections that had been in place for a quarter century.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced plans to repeal the 2001 “roadless rule” that had preserved the wild nature of nearly a third of the land in national forests in the United States. Ms. Rollins said the regulation was outdated.

“Once again, President Trump is removing absurd obstacles to common-sense management of our natural resources by rescinding the overly restrictive roadless rule,” Ms. Rollins said in a statement. She said the repeal “opens a new era of consistency and sustainability for our nation’s forests.”

Environmental groups said the plan could destroy some of America’s untouched landscapes and promised to challenge it in court.

The unspoiled land in question includes Tongass National Forest in Alaska, North America’s largest temperate rainforest; Reddish Knob in the Shenandoah Mountains, one of the highest points in Virginia; and millions of acres of the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho.

“Most Americans value these pristine backcountry areas for their sense of wildness, for the clean water they provide, for the fishing and hunting and wildlife habitat,” said Chris Wood, the chief executive of Trout Unlimited, an environmental group.

Businesses are eager to chop down the timber. There’s profit in those untouched forests, maybe even tracts for homes. The word “pristine” in not in their vocabulary.

Tags
Categories Academic Freedom, Accountability, Administrators, superintendents, Alabama, Albuquerque, Cruelty, Deregulation, Disruption, Environment, Extremism

Jennifer Berkshire: What’s Behind the Republican War on Education? Part 2.

By dianeravitch
April 8, 2025 //
8

Jennifer Berkshire has been writing about the politics of education for many years. She has written two books with education historian Jack Schneider, A Wolf at the Schoolhouse Door and The Education Wars. This is the second installment in her excellent series called “Connecting the Dots.” Her Substack blog is called “The Education Wars.”

She writes:

BAs are out, babies are in

The Trump world’s obsession with the declining birthrate doesn’t quite rank with rooting out “DEI,” tariff-ing, or expelling immigrants but it’s up there. In a recent interview, Elon Musk confessed that a fear of the shrinking number of babies keeps him up at night. What does this have to do with education? Everything. Last year, two of the big education ‘thinkers’ at Heritage released a guide to how changes in education policy could increase “the married birthrate”:

Expensive and misguided government interventions in education are, whether intended or not, pushing young people away from getting married and starting families—to the long-term detriment of American society.

What are those government interventions? Things like subsidizing student loans, thereby encouraging young women to go to college. Or requiring teachers, who are mostly women, to have bachelor degrees, thereby encouraging young women to go to college. Of course there is a voucher angle—there always is with these folks. But the key here is that a chorus of influential Trump thinkers like this guy keep telling us that there are too many women on campus, and that policy shifts could get them back into the home where they belong. 

If the administration succeeds in privatizing the government-run Student Loan Program, college will become much more expensive, significantly shrinkign the number of kids who’ll be able to attend. And that seems to be the point, as conservative activist Chris Rufo explained in an interview a few weeks ago.

By spinning off, privatizing and then reforming the student loan programs, I think that you could put the university sector as a whole into a significant recession. And I think that would be a very salutary thing.

So when you hear the rising chorus coming from Trump world that there are too many of the wrong people on the nation’s campuses, recall that an awful lot of these self-styled ‘nationalists’ believe this: “If we want a great nation, we should be preparing young women to become mothers.”

Some people are more equal than others 

I’ve been making the case that both the Department of Education and public education more broadly are especially vulnerable because of the equalizing roles that they play. Of course, education is not our only equalizer. Indeed, all of the institutions and policy mechanisms intended to smooth out the vast chasms between rich and poor are on the chopping block right now. While you were clicking on another bad news story, Trump eviscerated collective bargaining rights for thousands of federal workers. While teachers weren’t affected, a number of red states have been rushing to remedy that, including Utah which just banned collective bargaining for public employees. 

Writer John Ganz describes the unifying thread that connects so much of Trump world as ‘bosses on top,’ the belief that “the authority and power of certain people is the natural order, unquestionable, good.” We got a vivid demonstration of what this looks like in Florida this week as legislators debated whether to roll back (more) child labor protections, allowing kids as young as 14 to work over night. 

Governor Ron DeSantis is busily spinning the bill as about parents rights, but what it’s really about is expanding the power of the boss. The ‘right’ to work overnight while still in school is actually the boss’ right to demand that young employees keep working. Nor is it hard to imagine the long-term consequences of this policy change. Teen workers who labor through the night end up dropping out of school, their futures constrained in every possible way. Here’s how Marilynn Robinson described the rollback of child labor laws in her adopted home state of Iowa: “If these worker-children do not manage to finish high school, they will always be poorer for it in income and status and mobility of every kind.”

Go back one hundred years when the country was in the midst of a fierce debate over child labor, and you’ll hear the same arguments for ‘bosses on top’ that are shaping policy today. At a time when public education was becoming compulsory, conservative industry groups like the National Association of Manufacturers cast their opposition to both child labor laws and universal public education in explicitly bossist terms, as Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway recount in The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market:

“They believed that men were inherently unequal: it was right and just for workers to be paid far less than managers and managers far less than owners. They also believed that in a free society some children would naturally enter the workforce. Child labor laws wer (to their minds) socialistic because they enforced erroneous assumptions of equality—for example, that all children should go to school—rather than accepting that some children should work in factories.”

Back to the states

Did you hear the one about how we’re returning education to the states? Back-to-the-states has become a mantra for the Trump Administration on all kinds of favored policy issues, as the New York Times recently pointed out. Of course, education is already a state ‘thing,’ which means that we can look at the states Trump keeps pointing to as models and see how they’re faring. So how are they faring? Not so well, as the education reform group EdTrust lays out here, reviewing both NAEP scores and the track records of these states in supporting low-income students and students of color.

But there are plenty of warning signs beyond test scores. Ohio seems poised to slash funding for public education, even as the state’s voucher program balloons. (And let’s not even get into the just-enacted Senate Bill 1, which limits class discussions of any ‘controversial’ topic and goes hard at campus unions.) But for a glimpse of the future that awaits us, pay attention to another state in my beloved Heartland, and which Trump has repeatedly showered with praise: Indiana.

Now, Indiana happens to be home to one of my favorite economists, Ball State’s Michael Hicks, who has been warning relentlessly that the state’s decision to essentially stop investing in K-12 and public higher education has been an economic disaster. Hoosiers, he pointed out recently, earn less than the typical Californian or New Yorker did in 2005. As the number of kids going to college in Indiana has plummeted, the state now spends more and more money trying to lure bad employers to the state. Here’s how Hicks describes the economic and education policies that Indiana has embraced:

“If a diabolical Bond villain were to craft a set of policies that ensured long-term economic decline in a developed country, it would come in two parts. First, spend enormous sums of money on business incentives that offer a false narrative of economic vibrancy, then cut education spending.”

As for Indiana’s 25-year-long school choice experiment, Hicks concludes that it has been a failure. Why? Because the expansion of school vouchers and charter schools was used to justify spending less on public schools—precisely the policy course that we’re hurtling towards now. Today, Indiana spend less money per student on both K-12 and public higher education than it did in 2008.

GOP-run states have already begun to petition what’s left of the Department of Education for ‘funding flexibility’—the ability to spend Title 1 dollars, which now go to public schools serving low-income and rural students, on private religious education. We shouldn’t be surprised. This is precisely the vision laid out in Project 2025. (Fun fact: the same Heritage thinker who penned the education section of Project 2025 also co-authored the above referenced guide to getting young married ladies to have more babies.)

And just like in Indiana, school privatization will be used to justify reducing the investment in K-12 public education. So when an economist tells us that school choice “risks being Indiana’s single most damaging economic policy of the 21st century,” we should probably listen.

Categories Childhood, Cruelty, Democracy, Deregulation, DeSantis, Disruption, Economy, Elections, Evil, Extremism, Funding, History, Indiana, Iowa, Lies, Privatization, Republicans, Trump

Just Published: My Review of the Trump Education Agenda

By dianeravitch
January 11, 2025 //
5

This article just appeared on the website of The New York Review of Books.

https://www.nybooks.com/online/2025/01/11/their-kind-of-indoctrination/

It is my review of Trump’s plans for K-12 education.

NYRB is the most distinguished literary-political journal in the nation. It has a huge readership. It reaches a different audience than education journals.

If you subscribe to NYRB, you can open it in full. If you don’t, it costs $10 for 10 issues. Or, if you wait, I will post it in full in a few weeks.

Categories Accountability, Arizona, Budget Cuts, Censorship, Charter Schools, Civil Rights, Cruelty, Curriculum, Democracy, Deregulation, Disruption, Education Industry, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, For-Profit, Freedom to Read, Funding, Gender, History, Ignorance, Inequality, Lies, Privatization, Racism, Religion, Segregation, Separation of church and state, Trump, U.S. Department of Education

Peter Greene: Arizona Squanders Taxpayer $$ By Funding Failure

By dianeravitch
January 7, 2025 //
8

The preceding post was reported by ProPublica, an absolutely essential journalistic enterprise that serves the public interest.

Please read Peter Greene’s take on the same story. He adds additional research and his professional experience as a veteran teacher.

Greene writes:

Call it a zombie school, one more piece of predictable detritus washed up on the wave of voucher laws. Here’s an instructive tale.

ARCHES Academy was a charter school operating in Apache Junction, Arizona. But in March of 2024, the state board that oversees Arizona charters voted unanimously to shut the place down. Mind you, the board in Arizona is pretty charter friendly, but ARCHES had so many problems. Under 50 students were left at a K-8 school dinged for soooo many problems.

Chartered in 2020, promising a “holistic” approach that grouped students by ability rather than age, then put on an Assessment Consent Agreement in 2023. Financial mismanagement. Poor record-keeping. IRS violations. Violations of state and federal law. Academic results in the basement. State rating of D. Founder and principal Michelle Edwards told the board “Mistakes were made and compounded over time.” So, general incompetence rather than active fraudster work.

So ARCHES the charter school was shut down, because charters still have to answer to the state for their performance and competence.

But you know who doesn’t have any oversight at all in Arizona?

Private schools that accept taxpayer-funded vouchers.

So Edwards simply re-launched her school as the Title of Liberty (a name taken from a verse in the Book of Mormon). Some of her pitch was visible in a piece in The Arizona Beehive, a Mormon-flavored newsmagazine, in the summer of 2024.

As changes happen in the public education system, many families who belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have become more concerned about the potential influence of conflicting ideologies expressed in their children’s classrooms.

In the article, Edwards addresses her own concerns.

Principal Michelle Edwards, an early childhood specialist, has been in the education system for many years. The academy is a culmination of a dream of hers. “I recently had one student who was really struggling,” says Michelle, “and I couldn’t tell her about her divine abilities, that she’s a child of God, or who her father in heaven is.”

The article promises a Personal Learning Plan and notes that if tuition is an issue, the school will help parents apply for the Arizona ESA voucher to cover costs.

What the article doesn’t mention is that Edwards just had the school, under another name and as a charter, shut down by the state. But then, nobody, not even the state itself, told anyone.

Edwards’s new school went heavily with the religious pitch, with the website announcing “Christ-centered, constitutionally-based, education for all….”

Why doesn’t Arizona have anything in place to help apparently well-meaning folks like Edwards get into the education biz? Why doesn’t it exert even the slightest bit of oversight of the vendors cashing in on taxpayer-funded vouchers? I suspect it hints at what programs like Arizona’s voucher extravaganza are really about– and it’s not about a robust, choice-filled education environment. It’s about defunding and dismantling public education (and the tax burdens that go with it). But you can’t just tell folks, “We’re going to end public education.” So instead, hand them a pittance of a voucher and announce that you’re giving them freedom! And after that, you’ve washed your hands of them. The wealthy can still afford a top-notch education for their kids, and if Those People end up wasting their kids time in sub-prime, fraudulent, or incompetent pop up schools, well, that’s their problem.

If folks like the Arizona voucher crowd were serious about choice, they would provide transparency and oversight, rather than letting any shmoe rent a storefront and call it a school. But Arizona isn’t serious about choice. It’s serious about dismantling public education. It’s serious about getting public tax dollars into private hands and funding religious groups. And people like the families at Title of Liberty and even Edwards herself will just keep paying the price.

Categories Accountability, Arizona, Charter Schools, Deregulation, Disruption, Education Industry, Ethics, Failure, Funding, Privatization, Religion, Separation of church and state, Vouchers

Jan Resseger: How Privatization Of Public Services Undermines Democracy

By dianeravitch
December 16, 2024 //
8

Jan Resseger lives in Ohio. Before retiring, Jan staffed advocacy and programming to support public education justice in the national setting of the United Church of Christ—working to improve the public schools that serve 50 million of our children; reduce standardized testing; ensure attention to vast opportunity gaps; advocate for schools that welcome all children; and speak for the public role of public education.  Jan chaired the National Council of Churches Committee on Public Education for a dozen of those years.

Jan recently wrote this post for the National Center on Education Policy at the University of Colorado.

She writes:

I suppose many of us think about the classes we wish we had signed up for in college.  Right now, as somebody who believes public schools are among our nation’s most important and most threatened public institutions, I wish that in addition to enrolling in The Philosophy of Education, I had also taken a class in political philosophy—or at least Political Science 101. How have groups like the Heritage Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Betsy DeVos’s American Federation of Children and their proxies like Moms for Liberty managed to discredit public schooling and at the same time spawn an explosion of vouchers, which, according to the editors of last year’s excellent analysis, The School Voucher Illusion: Exposing the Pretense of Equity, are failing to serve our society’s poorest children even as they are destroying the institution of public schooling?

Here are that book’s conclusions: “As currently structured, voucher policies in the United States are unlikely to help the students they claim to support. Instead, these policies have often served as a facade for the far less popular reality of funding relatively advantaged (and largely White) families, many of whom already attended—or would attend—private schools without subsidies. Although vouchers are presented as helping parents choose schools, often the arrangements permit the private schools to do the choosing… Advocacy that began with a focus on equity must not become a justification for increasing inequity. Today’s voucher policies have, by design, created growing financial commitments of taxpayer money to serve a constituency of the relatively advantaged that is redefining their subsidies as rights—often in jurisdictions where neighborhood public schools do not have the resources they need.” (The School Voucher Illusion: Exposing the Pretense of Equity, p. 290)

As I watch the wave of school privatization washing across conservative states and read about universal school choice as one of the priorities of presidential candidate Donald Trump as well as a goal of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, I find myself wishing I had a better grasp of how our society has gone off the rails.  I wonder what I would have learned about the difference between democracy and extreme individualism in that political theory class I missed, and I find myself trying to catch up by reading—for example—on the difference between a society defined by individualist consumerism and a society defined by citizenship.

Back in 1984, the late political theorist Benjamin Barber published Strong Democracy, a book defining the principles our federal and state constitutions and laws are presumed to protect:  “Strong democracy … rests on the idea of a self-governing community of citizens who are united less by homogeneous interests than by civic education and who are made capable of common purpose and mutual action by virtue of their civic attitudes and participatory institutions rather than their altruism or their good nature. Strong democracy is consonant with—indeed depends upon—the politics of conflict, the sociology of pluralism, and the separation of private and public realms of action… The theory of strong democracy… envisions… politics as… the way that human beings with variable but malleable natures and with competing but overlapping interests can contrive to live together communally not only to their mutual advantage but also to the advantage of their mutuality…  It seeks to create a public language that will help reformulate private interests in terms susceptible to public accommodation… and it aims at understanding individuals not as abstract persons but as citizens, so that commonality and equality rather than separateness are the defining traits of human society.” (Strong Democracy, pp 117-119)

In that same book, Barber describes the consumer as a representative of extreme individualism—the opposite of the public citizen: “The modern consumer is the… last in a long train of models that depict man as a greedy, self-interested, acquisitive survivor who is capable nonetheless of the most self-denying deferrals of gratification for the sake of ultimate material satisfaction. The consumer is a creature of great reason devoted to small ends… He uses the gift of choice to multiply his options in and to transform the material conditions of the world, but never to transform himself or to create a world of mutuality with his fellow humans.” (Strong Democracy, p. 22)

Two decades later, Barber published Consumed, in which he explores in far more detail the danger of a society defined by consumerism rather than strong democracy. As his case study he contrasts parent-consumers who prioritize personal choice to shape their children’s education and parent-citizens: “Through vouchers we are able as individuals, through private choosing, to shape institutions and policies that are useful to our own interests but corrupting to the public goods that give private choosing its meaning.  I want a school system where my kid gets the very best; you want a school system where your kid is not slowed down by those less gifted or less adequately prepared; she wants a school system where children whose ‘disadvantaged backgrounds’ (often kids of color) won’t stand in the way of her daughter’s learning; he (a person of color) wants a school system where he has the maximum choice to move his kid out of ‘failing schools’ and into successful ones. What do we get?  The incomplete satisfaction of those private wants through a fragmented system in which individuals secede from the public realm, undermining the public system to which we can subscribe in common. Of course no one really wants a country defined by deep educational injustice and the surrender of a public and civic pedagogy whose absence will ultimately impact even our own private choices… Yet aggregating our private choices as educational consumers in fact yields an inegalitarian and highly segmented society in which the least advantaged are further disadvantaged as the wealthy retreat ever further from the public sector.  As citizens, we would never consciously select such an outcome, but in practice what is good for ‘me,’ the educational consumer, turns out to be a disaster for ‘us’ as citizens and civic educators—and thus for me the denizen of an American commons (or what’s left of it).” (Consumed, p. 132)

Barber concludes: “It is the peculiar toxicity of privatization ideology that it rationalizes corrosive private choosing as a surrogate for the public good.  It enthuses about consumers as the new citizens who can do more with their dollars… than they ever did with their votes. It associates the privileged market sector with liberty as private choice while it condemns democratic government as coercive.” (Consumed, p. 143)  “The consumer’s republic is quite simply an oxymoron… Public liberty demands public institutions that permit citizens to address the public consequences of private market choices… Asking what “I want’ and asking what ‘we as a community to which I belong need’ are two different questions, though neither is altruistic and both involve ‘my’ interests: the first is ideally answered by the market; the second must be answered by democratic politics.” “Citizens cannot be understood as mere consumers because individual desire is not the same thing as common ground and public goods are always something more than an aggregation of private wants…. (W)hat is public cannot be determined by consulting or aggregating private desires.” (Consumed, p. 126)

So that is today’s lesson from the political philosophy class I was never able to fit into my schedule in college: “Freedom is not just about standing alone and saying no. As a usable ideal, it turns out to be a public rather than a private notion… (N)owadays, the idea that only private persons are free, and that only personal choices of the kind consumers make count as autonomous, turns out to be an assault not on tyranny but on democracy. It challenges not the illegitimate power by which tyrants once ruled us but the legitimate power by which we try to rule ourselves in common. Where once this notion of liberty challenged corrupt power, today it undermines legitimate power… It forgets the very meaning of the social contract, a covenant in which individuals agree to give up unsecured private liberty in exchange for the blessings of public liberty and common security.” (Consumed, pp.119-123)

Categories Bigotry, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Citizenship, Democracy, Deregulation, Education Reform, Ethics, Inequity, Privatization, Vouchers

The New Republic: How Trump Will Profit Bigtime from His New Job

By dianeravitch
December 11, 2024 //
8

The New Republic writes about how easy it will be to bribe Trump. The emoluments clause in the Constitution has been rendered meaningless–the one that says the President can’t profit from his office. In his first term, nations and lobbyists paid him off by renting luxury suites at the Trump hotel near the White House. Now the possibilities are much greater.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has given Trump absolute immunity for criminal acts he performs while acting as President. So we can expect to see the President selling watches, Bibles, sneakers, NFT trading cards, perfume, and whatever in nightly addresses from the Oval Office.

Imagine a Presidential press conference where Trump has commercial breaks to sell his merch!

Just one more norm to break!

The story begins:

I know what you’re thinking. How can I, a 98-pound weakling, DEREGULATE my industry or win fat GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS? But after last week’s election, there’s NEVER been a better time to BRIBE THE PRESIDENT! As a candidate, Donald Trump said that, if elected, he would put his second term UP FOR SALE! Contribute to my campaign, he told oil and gas industry representatives, and REGULATORY RELIEF IS YOURS! 

But wait, you say. Aren’t there emoluments clauses in the Constitution that FORBID this? Isn’t BRIBERY of public officials AGAINST THE LAW? Not really, thanks to EXCITING NEW OPPORTUNITIES opened up by Supreme Court rulings and the Trump team’s own thrilling CULTURE OF IMPUNITY! 

The Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act requires major-party nominees for president to submit, before the election, a Memo of Understanding to the General Services Administration articulating an ethics policy to avoid conflicts of interest. Trump signed the MOU last time. He hasn’t submitted one this time, even though the deadline was October 1. Until he does, Trump is barred from carrying out certain transition functions. Probably he’ll sign eventually, but once he does the GSA will impose a $5,000 limit on private contributions to his transition and a disclosure requirement, neither of which is really the Trump way. Presumably Trump will tap many of the same donors who gave to him last time, including AT&T, General Electric, Microsoft, Exxon Mobil, and JPMorgan Chase. Meanwhile, no dollar limits inhibit contributions to Trump’s inaugural committee, which last time included $5 millionfrom the late Sheldon Adelson. Adelson’s finances are now in the hands of his widow, Miriam, whom Trump will likely tap again.

Am I saying any of these corporations or individuals extracted promises back in 2016 in exchange for their contributions? I am not. Back then they were deterred by fear of prosecution. But they have much less to fear now, because last June, in the latest of its rulings to render the federal bribery statute completely unenforceable, the Supreme Court ruled that a politician who gets paid off by the beneficiary of some past action is accepting a legal gratuity and not an illegal bribe. Less than one month after this decision (Snyder v. United States) came Trump v. United States, where the court ruled that a president couldn’t be prosecuted for any act performed as part of his official duties. The combined effect is that the highest court in the land is practically inviting you to bribe your president. You might risk offending it if you turn this fabulous offer down! The Supreme Court’s lassitude about bribery, however, bumps up against its lassitude about presidential immunity in an interesting way that I’ll discuss in a bit. 

As for the emoluments clauses (two of which apply to the president; a third is for members of Congress), the Supreme Court long ago made clear it had no intention of enforcing those. In 2020 the high court declined to hear an emoluments case (Blumenthal v. Trump) brought by members of Congress, thereby upholding a lower-court ruling that Congress lacked standing. In 2021 the court dispensed with two other emoluments cases (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) v. Donald J. Trump and the District of Columbia v. Trump), both filed way back in 2017, by delaying action until five days after Joe Biden was inaugurated president and then declaring the lawsuits moot. 

The high court resorted to this evasion because any ruling on the cases’ merits would have had to acknowledge that Trump, serially and flagrantly, violated the emoluments clauses both foreign (“no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust … shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State”) and domestic (“The President shall … not receive … any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them”). 

There’s a rich literature on the many and varied ways Trump made mincemeat of the emoluments clauses during his first term, including tworeports by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, one on foreign emoluments and one on domestic, and an update to the foreign emoluments report by CREW. According to CREW, Trump’s businesses received $13.6 million in payments from foreign governments during his presidency, including $5.7 million from China (mostly stays at Trump hotels), nearly $4 million from the United Kingdom (tax bailouts for two money-losing Trump golf resorts in Scotland), $1.1 million from Qatar (purchase of four units in Trump World Tower in New York City plus hotel stays at the now-defunct Trump International in Washington), and $885,000 from Saudi Arabia (which since 2001 has owned the 45thfloor of Trump World Tower; the Saudis also logged many stays at the Trump International). This tally excludes a reported $10 million campaign contribution that Trump’s 2016 campaign accepted from Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi. Such a contribution, if it was given, would be illegal. A Justice Department investigation of the alleged contribution was shut down by Trump Attorney General William Barr.

On the domestic front, federal and state officials spent, over just an 11-month period, more than $163,000 on rooms at the Trump International, including eight people Trump appointed ambassador and three people Trump appointed to the federal bench. Meanwhile, the Secret Service paid $1.4 million to various Trump properties in the United States so that it might carry out its duties to protect the president and his family from physical harm, at rates as much as 4.5 times the federal per diem. In some instances the Secret Service paid more than Trump charged members of the Qatari royal family. The Secret Service isn’t trying to bribe Trump, of course, but because its stays were paid from the Treasury they violated the domestic emoluments clause, which is triggered by the expenditure of government money.

Since Trump’s first term, opportunities to fill Trump’s pockets have proliferated. Truth Social is a money-losing social-media platform whose stock price is up 180 percent since late September. As I’ve noted before, Trump’s fans are much more interested in buying shares in his social-media platform than in using it, not because they can make money off it but because Trump can. Trump owns a $3.5 billion stake in the company even though he’s never invested in it and can sell that stake any time he wishes. Trump insists he isn’t selling, but more than half of Trump’s net worth of $5.9 billion is tied up in Truth Social, and he’s still burdened by hundreds of millions in debt. The presidency may be the only thing standing between Trump and personal bankruptcy. That reality makes Trump even more susceptible to payoffs of various kinds. “How much Truth Social stock do you own?” could easily become a routine question Trump poses to anybody seeking a political appointment or some other favor. If that’s established to be part of his “official duties,” no prosecutor can touch him. Maybe Trump’s new bestie Elon Musk will buy Truth Social and merge it with Twitter/X. The two platforms aren’t so different, and maybe Trump would agree to stop criticizing EVs in return.

Trump also has a cryptocurrency business, World Liberty Financial (WLF). He doesn’t own it, and neither he nor any family member works for it or sits on its board of directors. As with Truth Social, Trump has not invested in the company. Yet Trump and his family are poised to receive as much as 75 percent of net revenues from the company. When you pay your bribe, don’t forget to make it in WLF tokens!

The Trump International Hotel opened in Washington’s Old Post Office less than two months before the 2016 election, and with Trump’s victory it established the District of Columbia as a latter-day equivalent of Pottersville in It’s A Wonderful Life. Trump paid too much for his lease on this federal building in 2012, lost a fortune on it—and then sold it at a profit in 2022 under mysterious circumstances that I puzzled over two years ago. Some of the mystery cleared up after Forbes reported that Trump lent the new owner $28 million to take it off his hands. By last summer, though, the new owners—of what was now a Waldorf Astoria hotel—had defaulted, and in August the property quietly sold for $100 million at a foreclosure auction. 

Since then, Trump has licensed his name to three developments in Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, including a Trump Tower Dubai and an Intercontinental Hotel, sparing the governments of those countries the inconvenience of traveling to the United States to shovel petrodollars down Trump’s pants. The Saudis’ LIV Golf League has already hosted six tournaments at Trump properties and will doubtless now step up the pace.

At the risk of spoiling the party, I must point out one potential bullkill.  Josh Chafetz, professor of law at Georgetown and author of a forthcoming Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities article about the Supreme Court and political corruption, noted recently to Adam Liptak of The New York Times that the high court’s definitions of what constitute “official acts” lack consitency. In McDonnell v. United States, a 2016 bribery case involving a corrupt wingnut Virginia governor, Chief Justice John Roberts defined an official act narrowly as “a formal exercise of government power,” and on those grounds he vacated the bribery conviction. But in July’s Trump v. the United States, Roberts defined an official act broadly as anything occurring “within the outer perimeter of … official responsibility,” and on those grounds he shielded Trump from prosecution. The only logic these two definitions shared was the chief justice’s motive not to prosecute corrupt Republican politicians.

Please open the link to finish the article.

Categories Corruption, Deregulation, Elections, For-Profit, Fraud, Trump
« Older Entries