In 2017, when Trump passed his first budget bill, his allies inserted into it an unprecedented tax on institutions of higher education that have large endowments. The tax was 1.4%. But that 1.4%, though it seemed small, was money that would not be available for low-income students at expensive colleges and universities. The next logical step–once the government starts taxing nonprofits– would have been to tax megachurches but that didn’t happen.
This year, the Trump administration has included in its “One Big Ugly Budget Bill” a dramatic increase in the tax on higher education endowments.
Instead of 1.4%, the highest rate would climb to 21%.
This onerous tax would limit colleges’ ability to cover the tuition of students who are fully qualified but lack the financial resources to pay. The inevitable result of this tax will be to restrict the number and size of scholarships.
I received this letter from President Paula A. Johnson of Wellesley College, my alma mater. Dr. Johnson grew up in Brooklyn, where she graduated from a large public high school (Samuel J. Tilden), then to Radcliffe and to Harvard Medical School. She was a cardiologist before she was chosen as Wellesley’s president almost a decade ago. She is dedicated to providing scholarships for students who need them.
She wrote to all alumnae:
It is hard to overstate the importance of this moment for higher education. We are being threatened in previously unimaginable ways that cut to the core of our values and endanger a large proportion of our students. At Wellesley, we are deeply concerned about changes that could affect academic freedom, our need-blind status, and our ability to build a diverse community, one made richer by our international students.
One of the most significant threats comes from the likelihood of a major increase to the tax on college endowments. Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget bill that would raise the tax from 1.4% to as much as 21%. Under this proposal, Wellesley would be taxed at 14%, which means our liability under the tax would increase from $3 million, where it is currently, to $30 million per year—an amount equal to fully funding financial aid for 325 students.
When you consider that more than two-thirds of the $82 million Wellesley spent last year to support financial aid came from our endowment, the disastrous impact of this tax becomes clear. This is a punitive tax on students and families who need financial aid.
The tax would also have a disproportionate impact on small colleges like Wellesley that, without other revenue streams such as graduate programs or large research budgets, rely on endowments to support their mission.
At Wellesley, 43% of our operating budget comes from the endowment, making it our largest source of revenue. A tax increase would have a severe impact on our academic program and our ability to meet students’ financial needs. In addition, the tax would override the intent of generations of alumnae who have given to the endowment to support financial aid and our academic mission.
That is why Wellesley has joined a coalition of more than two dozen small colleges and universities from 17 states across the country that together serve more than 50,000 students. The coalition’s core argument, which we are sharing with members of Congress, is that endowments are not a luxury for small colleges; they are essential to continuing our commitments to access, opportunity, and educational excellence for students.
If this totally unwarranted tax is passed, the number of meritorious students from low-income, even middle-income families would shrink dramatically.
This is wrong.
Raise taxes on corporations and billionaires.
Tax megachurches.
Raise the taxes and tariffs on super yachts.
Don’t tax the endowments of institutions of higher education.
Republicans’ tax-and-spending megabill would give the school-choice movement a major, long-sought victory—and deliver an unusually generous tax break to wealthy taxpayers.
The bill includes a new way for taxpayers—whether they are parents or not—to direct tax dollars to private-school scholarships instead of the Treasury. There is an extra twist: It could deliver virtually risk-free profits to some savvy investors.
The proposal has excited school-choice advocates, infuriated public school leaders and stunned tax experts.
“Overnight, this would give millions of students access to the school of their choice,” said Tommy Schultz, CEO of the American Federation for Children, an advocacy group pushing the provision. “This is a revolution within the tax code.”
The American Federation for Children is the far-right wing group created by Betsy DeVos to promote charter schools and vouchers.
The incentive is structured as a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit. Give to a charity known as a scholarship-granting organization and you would get the same amount subtracted from your federal tax bill.
It is equivalent to redirecting your taxes to a scholarship-granting organization (SGO), with the benefit capped at 10% of adjusted gross income or $5,000, whichever is greater. That is a far better deal than what is offered by normal charitable donations, which generally just reduce your taxable income and only if you itemize deductions….
For people with appreciated stock, the proposal could be even more attractive than a dollar-for-dollar credit, potentially creating net profits.
Consider someone who bought a stock for $100 that is now worth $1,100. Selling that stock would trigger capital-gains taxes of up to $238. But under the bill, he could donate the $1,100 stock to an SGO. The government would give $1,100 back and he wouldn’t pay capital-gains taxes.
He could then buy the same $1,100 stock on the open market. The result? He’s better off than when he started, spending nothing to erase a potential capital-gains tax liability.
“In terms of something that is deeply offensive to basic tax logic, it’s hard to beat this,” said Lawrence Zelenak, a law professor at Duke University who expects donors to line up every Jan. 1 to take advantage. “Unless you actively hate the charity, you would want to do it…”
A federal program would expand private-school tuition subsidies into states such as New York and California that have resisted school choice programs….
The House bill caps credits at $5 billion annually, which would climb by 5% in subsequent years if the program is heavily used. That bill would run from 2026 through 2029. The Senate version released Monday includes $4 billion annually, starting in 2027 but without an expiration date.
The credit would mark a significant injection of resources to private education as the Trump administration separately seeks to cut federal grants for public schools. Still, it would pale in comparison to funding for public schools, which receive several hundred billion dollars annually, mostly from state and local governments.
Democrats hope the breadth of the policy changes will prompt the Senate parliamentarian to determine that it’s out of bounds for the budgetary fast-track process Republicans are using.
Public school advocates say the program would benefit better-off families at religious private schools. “The federal government needs to fund the neighborhood school that serves children from every walk of life,” said Sasha Pudelski, a lobbyist with the school superintendents’ association.
Opponents also say the idea has been rejected by voters. In November, three states voted down school-choice ballot measures.
Note: not only were vouchers defeated in three states last November, voters have rejected vouchers in every state referendum since 1967.
The new tax credit could become a model for Congress to direct money to other causes through the tax code, said Carl Davis, research director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive group that criticizes the plan.
Civil rights laws prohibit certain forms of discrimination in schools that receive federal funding, but it isn’t likely this would apply to private schools that benefit from the proposed tax credit, said Kevin Welner, a research professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. The House bill includes a provision barring discrimination against students with disabilities in school admissions; the Senate version doesn’t.
State voucher plans do not bar discrimination in voucher-receiving schools. They can and do discriminate at will. Some require that families are members of their faith. Some bar LGBT students and families. Some bar students with disabilities. Some bar students with low test scores.
Trump’s funding of school choice is the fever dream of Christian nationalists. With one blow, they eliminate the separation of church and state, they get funding for religious schools, and they gut civil rights laws that barred discrimination.
It also permits the revival of school segregation, under the once-discredited banner of school choice. White Southerners who don’t like “race mixing” have dreamed of this day since May 17, 1954.
Voice of America is known worldwide for its straightforward, unbiased presentation of world news. Trump placed MAGA enthusiast Keri Lake in charge. At his behest, she just laid off most of the VOA staff. Remember when America was great? We thought we had a message for the world and that the truth would set us free.
But Trump doesn’t want to “Make America great Again.” He wants to make America a land of bitter divisions, where the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer and sicker, unable to get health insurance, medical care, good schools, or any opportunity to rise into the middle class. For that, you need unions and good jobs.
The Trump administration sent layoff notices on Friday to more than 600 employees at Voice of America, a federally funded news organization that provides independent reporting to countries with limited press freedom.
The layoffs, known as reductions in force, will shrink the staff count at the news organization to less than 200, around one-seventh of its head count at the beginning of 2025. They put Voice of America journalists and support staff on paid leave until they are let go on Sept. 1.
The termination notices are the latest round of the Trump administration’s attack on federally funded news networks, including Voice of America.
In March, President Trump accused the news group of spreading “anti-American” and partisan “propaganda,” calling it “the voice of radical America.” He then signed an executive order that effectively called for dismantling of the news agency and put nearly all Voice of America reporters on paid leave, ceasing its news operations for the first time since its founding in 1942.
Kari Lake, a fierce Trump ally and a senior adviser at the news organization’s oversight agency, U.S. Agency for Global Media, notified Congress earlier this month that her agency intended to eliminate most positions at Voice of America. Her letter identified fewer than 20 employees who must remain at the media organization, according to laws passed by Congress to establish and fund it. Friday’s termination notices leave around 200 employees.
Ms. Lake’s decision “spells the death of 83 years of independent journalism that upholds U.S. ideals of democracy and freedom around the world,” Patsy Widakuswara, a former Voice of America White House bureau chief who was placed on leave and is leading a lawsuit against Ms. Lake and the U.S. Agency for Global Media, said in a statement.
She encouraged Congress to intervene and to signal support for Voice of America, which was founded to combat Nazi propaganda and reported in countries that suppress independent reporting and free speech.
“Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and extremist groups are flooding the global information space with anti-America propaganda,” Ms. Widakuswara said. “Do not cede this ground by silencing America’s voice.”
We don’t yet know the rewards and risks of artificial intelligence or its uses in the schools. Yet Trump’s “Big Ugly Budget Bill” creates a special status for AI in the schools and beyond, fending off regulation by states. Lobbyists at work.
There are many damaging aspects of the U.S. House budget bill just passed, but one that has received inadequate attention is a provision imposing a 10-year ban on states or localities from limiting or regulating the use of the artificial intelligence in the classroom and beyond.
This provision is a naked giveaway to the tech billionaires who want unfettered control and even higher profits for their products. According to some reports, the Senate has now tweaked the language of the House bill, but still proposes punishing any state that attempts to control the use of AI by cutting its funding.
The unregulated use of AI in the classroom is a profound threat to student privacy, as these programs collect and commercialize students’ personal data. It is also a threat to the personal connection, feedback and engagement central to a quality education. AI is one of the few technologies whose inventors have warned that it poses a serious risk to humanity itself, including Nobel Prize winner Geoffrey Hinton, often called the godfather of AI.
In a joint letter, more than 200 state legislators expressed their “strong opposition” to any ban on regulating AI, joining a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general who expressed similar concerns.
Please write to your U.S. Senators today, to demand that they eliminate any language from the budget bill that would prevent or dissuade states and localities from passing laws on AI to protect the safety, education and the well-being of our children. And please share this email with others who care. Thank you!
Tom Ultican, retired teacher of high school physics and advanced mathematics in California, has been keeping close watch on the billionaire-funded efforts to promote privatization and demean teachers. In this post, he reviews an opinion piece that advocates the resuscitation of failed policies of the past.
As I wrote in my 2013 book Reign of Error, merit pay has been tried again and again, and it has never worked. There and in my last book, Slaying Goliath (pp. 244-245), I cited powerful evidence that paying teachers based on the rise or fall of their students’ test scores was a disaster: The Gates Foundation awarded $575 million to three school districts and four charter chains to evaluate teachers by test scores and peer evaluators, in hopes of getting the best teachers to transfer into the neediest schools. Gates hired top firms Rand and AIR to evaluate the program over six years. They concluded that it wasted resources that might have been better spent on reducing class sizes or raising teachers’ salaries. The program did not raise test scores, did not affect graduation rates or dropout rates, andddid not change the quality of teachers. Yet Hanushek and Macke advocate for the revival of this failed practice.
Ultican writes
It was “déjà vu all over again” when Eric Hanushek and his wife Macke Raymond shared their views in the Washington Post. They cited Michelle Rhee and Mike Miles as exemplary education leaders, merit pay as good education policy and turned to A Nation at Risk for support. Governor Abbott took over Houston’s schools and installed Miles as superintendent but here Hanushek and Raymond were referencing his long ago stint in Dallas.
I am no longer a reader of the Washington Post. When Bezos decided his newspaper would not endorse a candidate for president, I cancelled my subscription. However, a friend felt I needed to see this article and sent me a copy.
Billionaires like Bezos are destroying America and all of its venerable institutions. Hanushek and Raymond are Stanford based billionaire tools.
While working on her PhD in Political Science at the University of Rochester, Macky fell in love with her much older professor, Eric Hanushek, and eventually married him.
Today, Raymond is the director of CREEDO. Her 2015 Hoover Institute Fellow’s profile says in part, “In partnership with the Walton Family Foundation and Pearson Learning Systems, Raymond is leading a national study of the effectiveness of public charter schools.” Are the billionaires guarding the hen house?
Rhee and Miles
The Hanushek and Raymond opinion piece states:
“In 2009, under the leadership of then-Chancellor Michelle Rhee, Washington implemented the IMPACT program — a revamped teacher evaluation system that is linked directly to classroom effectiveness and that provides large increases in base salaries for the most effective teachers and dismissal for the least effective. This program has shown that focusing on student learning is rewarded with improved student performance, and that student-focused incentives work.”
This is a totally bunkum statement and is followed by another world of bunkum claim:
“Under the leadership of then-Superintendent Mike Miles, Dallas in 2015 switched to a salary system based on a sophisticated evaluation of teacher effectiveness. It then used this system to provide performance-based bonuses to teachers who would agree to go to the lowest-performing schools in the district. Two things happened: First, the best teachers responded to the incentives and were willing to move to the poorest-performing schools. Second, within two years, these schools jumped up to the district average.”
The linked evidence in the Dallas claim is to an Education Next article written by Hanushek and friends. In it, he claimed, “In the four years after Dallas adopted new performance-based teacher evaluation and compensation systems, student performance on standardized tests improved by 16 percent of a standard deviation in math and 6 percent in reading, while scores for a comparison group of similar Texas schools remained flat.”
Sixteen percent of a standard deviation of growth in math after 4 years sounds weak and 6% of a standard deviation growth in reading does not seem much more than noise in the data.
Hanushek gained notoriety with his 1981 paper, claiming “there is no relationship between expenditures and the achievement of students and that such traditional remedies as reducing class sizes or hiring better trained teachers are unlikely to improve matters.” This played well with billionaires from the Walton family but had no relationship with reality. The history of crazy pants unsupported statements like this have long caused me to seek verification for whatever he says.
Hanushek and Raymond claim that both Dallas and Washington DC saw comparatively superior testing outcomes than other urban areas in the US. The evidence they provide is a link to the NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment (tuda). I graphed 4th and 8th grade math tuda data between 2009 and 2024 for the Large City composite, Dallas, DC, Baltimore and San Diego. Nothing substantive popped out in my graphs.
I decided to subtract the 4th grade scores from the 8th grade scores to get a sense of how the students were progressing. The results graphed below stunned me with their clarity. Baltimore, which traditionally has low scores, San Diego, which traditionally scores well and the Large City composite had fairly consistent increases of about 40 points. Dallas and DC both fell below a 30 points increase.
Billionaires Take Over
Michelle Rhee came out of Teach for America (TFA) where she taught for three years in a Baltimore elementary school. She returned to New York, TFA and Wendy Kopp to help found the New Teachers Project which is now known as TNTP. New York Chancellor of Public Schools, Joel Klein, who worked for multi-billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg, recommended the 37-year-old Rhee to be Washington DC’s new superintendent.
During Rhee’s three year reign of terror, she replaced half of DC’s teachers and a third of its principals. She was consumed with raising test scores and scorned those who did not share her devotion to standardized testing. Her relentless pressure to raise test scores brought some early gains and produced a major cheating scandal.
DC principal, Adell Cothorne, lost her job for insisting upon increased test security when she learned that teachers were violating testing protocols. I had lunch with Adell at the 2015 NPE conference in Chicago. She struck me as a proud Black woman with poise, immense courage and profound character.
After Rhee left DC schools, she started StudentsFirst and led a national crusade to abolish teacher tenure and promote school choice. Billionaires and their friends provided her organization with millions of dollars. (Reign of Error, Pages 145-155)
Before 2012, Dallas school board elections were very low key affairs. Two of the three incumbent school board trustees up for reelection ran unopposed in 2011.
Writing for In These Times, George Joseph explained the political change, “But since the beginning of 2012, hundreds of thousands of Super PAC dollars from Dallas’ richest neighborhoods began flowing into nearly all of the district’s school board elections.”
Once the new 2012 board was seated, it fired Superintendent Michael Hinojosa and replaced him with Mike Miles, a graduate of billionaire Eli Broad’s Superintendents Academy.
“Miles’s reforms included a new principal evaluation process which led to large turnover. He also instituted a merit pay system for teachers and hired Charles Glover a 29-year-old administrator of the Dallas TFA branch to be Chief Talent Officer in DISD. After just under three years, he had managed to alienate the black and Hispanic communities as well as many experienced teachers and principals.”
Like Michelle Rhee, he also believed in standardized test based accountability and merit pay.
Concluding Information
Reporting for NPR’s 35 anniversary of A Nation at Risk, Ana Kamenetz discovered, “They started out already alarmed by what they believed was a decline in education, and looked for facts to fit that narrative.”
A decade before Ana’s report, Florida education professor, James Guthrie, noted, “They cooked the books to get what they wanted.”
In 1990, Sandia engineers set out to add weight to A Nation at Risk. They disaggregated the data by race and sex and were surprise to find that every group advanced during the 1963 to 1980 period. The growing numbers of SAT test takers was driven by poor, minority and female students, causing the test averages to drop.
A Nation at Risk was a fraudulent paper and America’s students were actually healthy and doing well, which means public schools were healthy and doing well.
Merit pay is a Taylorist scheme that appeals to many American business leaders, but has a long history of employee dissatisfaction and output quality issues. Researchers at Vanderbilt University studied merit pay for teachers and found no significant gains in testing data and in New York researchers documented negative results.
Unfortunately, billionaires own the media and publish opinion pieces by hired frauds like Hanushek and Raymond.
Elon Musk left Washington, where he enjoyed the exalted status of being Trump’s brain. He returned to Texas, his new home. Where he launched into a Twitter tirade against Trump.
But he left behind a still large contingent of DOGS (Department of Governmental Subsistence).
In an effort launched shortly after DOGE’s creation, ProPublica has now identified more than 100 private-sector executives, engineers and investors from Silicon Valley, big American banks and tech startups enlisted to help President Donald Trump dramatically downsize the U.S. government.
While Elon Musk has departed the Department of Government Efficiency, the world’s richest man is leaving a network of acolytes embedded inside nearly every federal agency.
At least 38 DOGE members currently work or have worked for businesses run by Musk, ProPublica found in an examination of their resumes and other records. At least nine have invested in Musk companies or own stock in them, a review of available financial disclosure forms shows.
ProPublica found that at least 23 DOGE officials are making cuts at federal agencies that regulate the industries that employed them, potentially posing significant conflicts of interest. One DOGE member tasked with overseeing mass layoffs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for instance, did so while owning stock in companies the agency regulated.
At least 12 remain, on paper, employees or advisers of the companies they worked at before DOGE, a review of financial disclosure forms shows. And at least nine continue to receive corporate benefits from their private-sector employers, including health insurance, stock vesting plans or retirement savings programs. These employment agreements could create a situation in which a DOGE staffer would be shaping federal policies that affect their employer.
The people behind DOGE are largely men in their 20s and 30s, most of whom bring no government experience to the task. Many of them previously worked in finance.
ProPublica’s list — the largest of its kind by any news organization — allows readers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the backgrounds of the people assigned to one of the Trump administration’s signature efforts. It comes at a crucial moment, as some of the first-generation DOGE members are leaving the government and a new crop is joining.
“Even though Elon Musk and some of his top officials are shifting their attention to other issues, I see no indication that the DOGE team members who remain will slow down their work to test the legal and ethical boundaries of using technology in the name of improving government services,” said Elizabeth Laird, a director at the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology.
While the Trump administration asserts it is the most transparent in history, DOGE operates shrouded by the shadows of bureaucracy.
Many of its staffers have deleted their public profiles, have wiped the internet of their professional backgrounds or were encouraged by leadership not to discuss their work with friends. At the behest of the Trump administration, the Supreme Court halted a court order Friday that would have required DOGE to turn over information to a government watchdog — challenging whether the group will ever be subject to public records requests. The Trump administration has banned DOGE staffers from speaking publicly without approval.
To cast a light on this secretive group, ProPublica began reporting in February on Musk’s influence inside the Trump administration, cataloging who was part of DOGE and how associates of the billionaire tech mogul were taking up senior posts across agencies. Our DOGE tracker, the first such list published by media outlets, is the culmination of hundreds of conversations with sources across government.
Today, we are adding 23 staffers to our tracker, taking the total to 109. They are spread throughout the government, from the Department of Defense to the General Services Administration to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
First, he said he would cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. Then, he said he would cut $1 trillion.
Then, he dropped his target to $165 billion.
Even that number is disputed because federal courts keep ruling that DOGS firings should be nullified and workers should return to their jobs. Other “savings” were canceled out by the costs of benefits. By some measures, the DOGS game may have cost money, not saved it.
One thing is certain: the federal deficit will grow after Trump’s first year in office, thanks to tax cuts for the top 1%.
Jennifer Rubin was a star columnist at The Washington Post, but resigned after Jeff Bezos tried to exert control over the opinion pages to makts writers less antagonistic to Trump. Ironically, Rubin was originally hired by The Post to be its conservative columnist. But the extremism of the MAGA movement repelled her. After she resigned from The Post, she started a blog called The Contrarian, where she has gathered a stellar lineup of other journalists.
The horrifying assassination of Minnesota state legislator Mellisa Hortman and her husband Mark, and the attempted assassination of state senator John Hoffman and his wife on Saturday followed a week in which the full magnitude of Donald Trump’s violence, cruelty, chaos, and insatiable quest to destroy American democracy as we knew it were on full view. At a time when the country is in dire need of empathy, unity, and healing, MAGA Republicans will return to D.C. this week to pick up where they left off in their reconciliation debate wrangling: seeking to pass a bill that includes the most monstrous transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the uber-rich in recent history.
The Congressional Budget Office determined that if the House bill gets enacted, the bottom decile of Americans by income would lose about $1600 while the top 10 decile would gain more than $12,000. Meanwhile, the debt would balloon to 134% of GDP by 2034.
The MAGA reverse-Robin-Hood scheme would, among other things, remove 11 Million people from Medicaid, 5 Million from the Affordable Care Act exchanges, slash SNAP by more than $700M, “strip 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of eligibility for the Child Tax Credit,” and eliminate or reduce energy credits and subsidies, sending energy costs soaring, particularly in red states.
The bill targets certain categories of legal immigrants (e.g., TPS holders or asylum seekers) by removing them from access to ACA exchanges and stripping them of Medicare benefits (after they have paid into the system).
The party that once stood for federalism would bludgeon states to eliminate Medicaid benefits for these people, provoking the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ assessment that:
“This policy is a direct affront to state sovereignty, placing enormous pressure on states to reduce or terminate coverage programs that their lawmakers have adopted and that they have a legal right to provide or face devastating cuts to Medicaid expansion funding…It goes beyond coercion by imposing a direct, virtually unavoidable penalty on some states.”
Consider the monstrous tradeoffs the bill entails. Former car czar Steven Rattner found that “just the tax cuts for people earning over $500,000 a year would cost $1.1 trillion, very close to the $715 billion that would be saved by cutting Medicaid and SNAP.”
Especially hard-hit would be rural residents in Red states who disproportionately rely on Medicaid. Moreover, their hospitals, which are dependent on Medicaid reimbursement, would go under in dozens of communities. Shuttering hospitals not only deprives residents of access to health services, but in many cases it would mean eliminating the area’s main employer.
Voters have gleaned how this is going to work. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows “seven in ten adults (72%) are worried that a significant reduction in federal funding for Medicaid would lead to an increase in the share of uninsured children and adults in the U.S., including nearly half (46%) who are ‘very worried’ and one in four (25%) who are ‘somewhat worried.’” In addition, 71% think the bill will negatively impact hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care providers in their communities (71%).
The most heinous aspect of all: Due to the massive cuts in healthcare coverage, Yale and the University of Pennsylvania estimate an additional 51,000 Americans would die each year.
Former president Joe Biden used to say, “Don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” Apparently, MAGA Republicans value savaging the poor to stuff more money in their (and their donors’) pockets, turn America into an anti-legal immigration country, and rob people of healthcare and other vital programs.
The bill’s damage does not stop there. With the huge increase in debt, borrowing costs for individuals and businesses would go up. “A spike in the national debt can be enough to boost inflation on its own,” the Washington Post reports. The government’s rising borrowing costs would yield painful results for families. “A 1 percent increase in the ratio would amount to extra annual interest costs of $60 for car loans, $600 on the typical mortgage and $1,000 for small business loans after five years, the Budget Lab found. After 30 years, the premium is even higher — adding $2,300 per year to the typical mortgage, for example.
All of that comes on top of the Trump tariffs, another regressive tax that falls disproportionately on lower-income Americans.
No wonder the MAGA bill is so unpopular. The latest Quinnipiac poll found voters oppose the plan by a margin of 53% (including 57% of independents). MAGA Republicans who rubber stamp this bill would therefore be inflicting monstrous pain on Americans, growing the debt, and taking perhaps the worst political vote of their careers.
Trump came to office promising to reduce inflation, lower costs, clamp down on energy prices, and even balance the budget. Instead, if MAGA Republicans allow him, he will continue to increase inflation, raise costs, ignite higher energy prices, and bust the budget. When voters go to the polls in 2026 and beyond, they are not likely to forget who betrayed them.
Please read and take action to oppose Trump’s tyranny:
Earlier this week Donald Trump called for a second civil war at a US military base. This scenario can be resisted and prevented, if we have the courage to listen, interpret, and act. And this Saturday we will have the occasion to act.
The listening is important. The speech was given at the base now known again as Ft. Bragg. The fort was named for a confederate general. It was renamed Ft. Liberty. Under this administration, it was renamed Fort Bragg, now ostensibly to honor another American serviceman, not the confederate general. It is a dishonest pretense that dishonors everyone. The fort is now named again after a confederate general, as Trump made clear. The tradition that is now in fact being honored, that of oathbreakers and traitors.
In Trump’s speech, the existence of the United States is placed in doubt. We are not a country but a divided society in which some of us deserve punishment by others. He made no mention of the world today, nor of any common American interest that might necessitate national defense. There was no concern about threats from China or Russia. Middle Eastern dictatorships, the only countries that Trump singled out, garnered great praise because their leaders gave Trump money. There was no mention of any wars that are actually underway, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Trump invoked battlefields across the decades to create a sense of individual heroism, in which of course the history the the US Army is very rich. But that individual heroism is usually cited by commanders in chief as evidence of a nation that is worthy of defense. No such America figured in Trump’s speech. America did not exist Trump’s speech, except as a cult to him personally.
In the actual history of the United States, one war is central: the Civil War. Trump, who has never seen the point of the Union Army defending the republic, now seems now to have moved on to the position that the Confederacy should have won. He promised to rename Fort Gregg-Adams, the first base named for African-Americans, to Fort Robert E. Lee. The base in question hasn’t been known by the full name of the confederate commander since 1950. Lee was a traitor, an oathbreaker, a defender of slavery and the commander of a force whose mission was to break up the United States of America.
In his speech, Trump claimed that seizing undocumented migrants in 2025 shows the same courage as fighting in the Revolutionary War, or the First World War, or the Second World War, or Korea or Vietnam. It would have been news to the soldiers at the time that charging a trench or jumping from a plane is no different than ganging up on a graduate student or bullying a middle-aged seamstress.
But here we see the magic of Trump’s rhetoric: he seeks to transform the courage of the past into the cowardice of the future. He is preparing American soldiers to see themselves as heroes when they undertake operations inside the United States against unarmed people, including their fellow citizens.
All of this, of course, trivializes actual US military achievements. The actual battles of our history just become a “show,” to use one of Trump’s keywords. They are deeds performed for the pleasure of a Leader who then invokes them to justify his own permanent power. Denuded of all context, military glory becomes a spectacle into which any meaning can be injected. And he who injects the meaning is he who rules. That is the fascist principle that Trump understands. There is no politics except struggle, and he who can define the enemy in the struggle can stay in power. But whereas historical fascists had an enemy without and an enemy within, Trump only has an enemy within. The world is too much for him. The army is just for dominating Americans.
In his speech, Trump was trying to transform a legacy of battlefield victory around the world into a future willingness to take illegal orders regarding his own policy on the territory of the United States. The defiance of the law was clear. Trump cannot, for example, legally just rename those bases. The forts were named by an act of Congress. And he cannot legally deploy the Marines to Los Angeles. He has no authority to do so. The president is expressly forbidden by law from using the armed forces to implement domestic policies.
Trump defined himself not as a president but as a permanent Leader. In repeatedly mocking his predecessor, he was summoning soldiers to defy the fundamental idea that their service is to the Constitution and not to a given person. “You think this crowd would have showed up for Biden?” Whether or not it is unprecedented, as I believe it is, such mockery certainly dangerous. It suggests that something besides an election, something like individual charisma, some personal right to rule, is what matters. That soldiers should follow Trump because he is Trump, and not for any other reason.
In general, we imagine that the US Army is here to defend us, not to attack us. But summoning soldiers to heckle their fellow Americans is a sign of something quite different. Trump seized the occasion to summon soldiers to join him in mocking the press. Reporters, of course, as the Founders understood, are a critical check on tyranny. They, like protestors, are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Trump was teaching soldiers that society does not matter, and that law does not matter. He “loves” soldiers. He is personally responsible for the pay raises: “I gave you so much money for four years it was crazy.” “We’re giving you an across-the-board raise” This is the way a dictator speaks to a palace guard, or a fascist to a paramilitary.
Trump is putting himself above the army and the army above the country: “we only have a country because we first had an army, the army was first.” That ridiculous: the Continental Army was formed in 1775 from the people, for the very specific and time-limited purpose of ending colonial oppression. Trump wants the armed force to be the end in itself, and freedom to be its enemy. Generally, presidents who speak to soldiers of military glory have had in mind the defense of American freedoms, such as the freedom of expression, including the freedom of the press and the freedom to assemble. Trump said nothing about freedom, except as a “flame” or a “shield.” He said nothing about rights. There was not a word about democracy.
We are witnessing an attempt at regime change, rife in perversities. It has a historical component: we are to celebrate the oathbreakers and the traitors. It has a fascist component: we are to embrace the present moment as an exception, in which all things are permitted to the Leader. And of course it has an institutional component: soldiers are meant to be the avant-garde of the end of democracy. Instead of treating the army as defenders or freedom, Trump presented soldiers as his personal armed servants, whose job it was to oppress his chosen enemies — inside the United States. Trump was trying to instruct soldiers that their mission was to crush fellow Americans who dared to exercise their rights, such as the right to protest.
Referring to migration as an “invasion,” as Trump did during the speech, is meant to blur the distinction between his immigration policy and a foreign war. But it is also meant to transform the mission of the US Army. The meaningful border here is that between reality and fantasy. If soldiers and others are willing to accept that migration is an “invasion,” then they enter into an alternative reality. Inside that alternative reality, they will see those who do not accept the invasion fantasy as enemies. And this is exactly what Trump called for when he portrayed elected officials in California as collaborators in “an occupation of the city by criminal invaders.”
The US Army, like other American institutions, includes people of various backgrounds. It depends heavily on African-Americans and non-citizens. One can try to transform the army into a cult of the Confederacy and a tool to persecute migrants, but this will cause, at a minimum, great friction. Beyond this, using the Army to enforce domestic policy risks ruining its reputation. Deploying the armed forces in cities risks US soldiers killing US civilians. It also risks that provocateurs, including foreign ones, including allies of Trump, will try to kill an American soldier to provoke a disaster. (Trump’s birthday parade seems practically designed for such an incident, by the way.)
Trump will welcome and exploit such situations, of course. He doesn’t have the courage to say things clearly or start conflict directly, but instead sets up others for situations in which they suffer and he profits. The question is whether civil war is the future Army officers and soldiers want. When Trump promises to celebrate Robert E. Lee, he is telling the Army that oath-breakers and traitors will be celebrated in the future. This is not in his gift. Officers who bring the US armed forces to battle American civilians will be remembered by the heirs of a broken republic and as the people who started a second American civil war.
It is clear what Trump is trying to do. He wants to turn everything around. He wants an army that is not a legal institution but a personal paramilitary. He wants it not to defend Americans but to oppress them. He wishes the shame of our national history to become our pride. He wants to transform a republic into a fascist regime by transforming a history of courage into a future of cowardice.
This can only succeed if it goes unchallenged. All of us can think about his words and their implications. Officers and soldiers can remember that not all orders are legal orders. Those in the media can interpret Trump’s speeches clearly rather than just repeating them or seeing them as one side in a partisan dispute. Our courts can name the limits of his authority. And even a Republican Congress can recognize when its powers are being usurped in a way that risks the end of our country.
Though he did not mention the Civil War, Trump did refer to “the sacred soil of Gettysburg.” It is worth recalling Lincoln’s very different sense of the sacrifice of American soldiers in his Gettysburg Address:
The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
In the end, and in the beginning, and at all moments of strife, a government of the people, by the people, for the people depends upon the awareness and the actions of all of us. A democracy only exists if a people exist, and a people only exists in individuals’ awareness of one another of itself and of their need to act together. This weekend Trump plans a celebration of American military power as a celebration of himself on his birthday — military dictatorship nonsense. This is a further step towards a different kind of regime. It can be called out, and it can be overwhelmed.
Thousands of Americans across the land, many veterans among them, have worked hard to organize protests this Saturday — against tyranny, for freedom, for government of the people, by the people, for the people. Join them if you can. No Kings Day is June 14th.
A federal judge issued an order late Thursday blocking President Trump from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles, and ordered the administration to return control of the forces to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The restraining order from District Judge Charles R. Breyer, which takes effect Friday at noon Pacific time, delivered a sharp rebuke to President Trump’s effort to deploy thousands of National Guard troops on the streets of an American city, a move has contributed to nearly a week of political rancor and protests across the country.
“His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Judge Breyer wrote of Mr. Trump’s orders. But he gave the administration a chance to appeal.
A federal judge in San Francisco on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to “return control” of the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom after the president issued an extraordinary order deploying them to Los Angeles over the weekend.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, presiding over the case, granted California’s request for a temporary restraining order, granting the federal government a stay until Friday to appeal the ruling.
Breyer had expressed skepticism at a hearing Thursday over the matter, questioning whether President Trump had operated within his authority.
“We’re talking about the president exercising his authority, and of course, the president is limited in his authority,” Breyer said. “That’s the difference between the president and King George.”
“We live in response to a monarchy,” the judge continued, adding: “Line drawing is important, because it establishes a system of process.
In the lengthy decision, Breyer wrote that he is “troubled by the implication” inherent in Trump administration’s argument “that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.”
Jan Resseger is a social justice warrior who fights for the underdog. She describes here how Trump’s budget enacts the fever dreams of evangelicals and billionaires. He would change federal aid from its historic purpose–equitable funding–and turn it into school choice, diverting funds from the poorest children to those with ample resources. Since 1965–for 70 years–federal education funding for public schools has enjoyed bipartisan support. Trump ends it.
She writes:
Earlier this week, Education Week‘s Mark Lieberman released a concise and readable analysis of the likely impact for public education of two pieces of federal funding legislation: the “Big, Beautiful” tax and reconciliation bill currently being debated in the U.S. Senate to shape public school funding beginning right now in FY 2025, and also President Trump’s proposed FY 2026 federal budget for public schooling in the fiscal year that begins October 1st.
Trump’s FY 2026 budget proposal saves Head Start.
Lieberman shares one important piece of positive news about Trump’s treatment of Head Start in next year’s federal budget: “Some programs survived the cut—including Head Start.” In early May, the Associated Press‘s Moriah Balingit reported: “The Trump administration apparently has backed away from a proposal to eliminate funding for Head Start… Backers of the six-decade-old program, which educates more than half a million children from low-income and homeless families, had been fretting after a leaked Trump administration proposal suggested defunding it… But the budget summary… did not mention Head Start. On a call with reporters, an administration official said there would be ‘no changes’ to it.”
Federal funding for U.S. public schools looks bleak.
Lieberman’s assessment of federal public education funding is not so encouraging. Overall, “The administration is aiming to eliminate roughly $7 billion in funding for K-12 schools in its budget for fiscal 2026, which starts Oct. 1. Several key programs will be maintained at today’s funding level, without an increase: “Flat funding amounts to a de-facto cut given inflation. The administration is proposing to maintain current funding levels for key programs like Title I-A for low-income students ($18.4 billion), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B for special education ($14.2 billion) and Perkins grants for K-12 and postsecondary career and technical education ($1.4 billion).”
What has been historically a key purpose of federal public education funding—to compensate for vast inequity in the states’ capacity and the states’ willingness to fund public education—is being compromised. Lieberman explains that much of federal funding, “is currently geared toward supporting special student populations including English learners, migrants, students experiencing homelessness, Native students, and students in rural schools. Longstanding federal programs that support training for the educator workforce; preparing students for postsecondary education; reinforcing key instructional areas like literacy, civics, and the arts… would disappear. A new K-12 grant program would offer a smaller pool of funds to states and let them decide whether and how to invest in those areas. And for the first time, all federal funding for special education would flow to states through a single funding stream…. Experts view Trump’s budget as part of an effort to roll back a half-century of effort by the federal government to help make educational opportunities more consistent and equitable from state to state and district to district.”
The “Educational Choice for Children Act,” an alarming federal school voucher bill, is hidden inside the “Big Beautiful” bill.
Lieberman worries about the enormous tuition tax credit voucher plan embedded deep in the weeds of the “Big, Beautiful” tax and reconciliation bill now being considered in the U. S. Senate: “Separate from the federal budget process, Congress is currently advancing a massive package of tax changes, including a proposal for a new tax-credit scholarship program that fuels up to $10 billion a year in federal subsidies for private K-12 education. Annual spending on that program could approach the amount the Trump administration is proposing to cut from elsewhere in the education budget.” The voucher proposal is called the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA).
In a separate analysis of the “Big, Beautiful” bill as the House passed it in late May, Lieberman describes this proposed ECCA tuition-tax-credit voucher program: “House lawmakers narrowly approved a sweeping legislative package with $5 billion in annual tax credits that fuel scholarships and related expenses at K-12 private schools. The federal subsidies would come in the form of dollar-for-dollar tax credits for individuals and corporations that donate to largely unregulated state-level organizations that give out scholarship funds for parents to spend on private educational options of their choosing. Any student—even in states that have resisted expanding private school choice—from a family earning less than 300 percent of the area median gross income would be eligible to benefit from a scholarship paid for with a federally refunded donation.”
Lieberman adds: “No other federal tax credit is as generous. The Internal Revenue Service doesn’t currently supply tax credits worth the full donation amount for any cause, as the private school choice scholarship credit would do. The federal government currently offers tax credits on donations for disaster relief, houses of worship, veterans’ assistance groups, and children’s hospitals at roughly 37 percent of the donated amount. A $10,000 donation to those causes would yield a tax credit of $3,700. By contrast, under the proposed legislation, if a taxpayer donates $10,000 to a scholarship (voucher)-granting organization, the IRS would give them a tax credit of $10,000.”
The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy’s Carl Davis explains that because these federal school vouchers are primarily a tax shelter, they might appeal to wealthy people who are not even supporters of school privatization: “The tax plan… includes a provision granting extraordinarily generous treatment to nonprofits that give out vouchers for free or reduced tuition at private K-12 schools. While the bill significantly cuts charitable giving incentives overall, nonprofits that commit to focusing solely on supporting private K-12 schools would be spared from those cuts and see their donors’ tax incentive almost triple relative to what they receive today. On top of that, the bill goes out of its way to provide school voucher donors who contribute corporate stock with an extra layer of tax subsidy that works as a lucrative tax shelter. Essentially, the bill allows wealthy individuals to avoid paying capital gains tax as a reward for funneling public funds to private schools.” “We estimate the bill would reduce federal tax revenue by $23.2 billion over the next 10 years as currently drafted, or by $67 billion over the next ten years if it is extended beyond its four-year expiration date… As currently drafted, the bill would facilitate $2.2 billion in federal and state capital gains tax avoidance over the next 10 years.”
The Brookings Brown Center on Education Policy’s Jon Valant warns that the vouchers are so deeply buried in the “Big, Beautiful” bill that lots of people would not be aware of the plan’s existence until after it is passed: “The Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) continues to move, quietly, towards becoming one of America’s costliest, most significant federal education programs. Now part of the One Big Beautiful Bill, ECCA would create a federal tax-credit scholarship program that’s unprecedented in scope and scale. It has flown under the radar, though, and remains confusing to many observers… ECCA’s stealthiness is partly due to the confusing nature of tax-credit scholarship programs. These programs move money in circuitous ways to avoid the legal and political hurdles that confront vouchers.”
Valant explains how tax-credit vouchers work: “Tax-credit scholarship programs like ECCA aren’t quite private school voucher programs, but they’re first cousins. In a voucher program, a government gives money (a voucher) to a family, which the family can use to pay for private school tuition or other approved expenses. With a tax-credit scholarship, it’s not that simple. Governments offer tax credits to individual scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). These SGOs then distribute funds… to families.”
Valant creates a scenario that shows how this tax credit program could help the wealthy and leave out poorer families. A rich donor, Billy, donates $2 million in stock to an SGO: “Billy’s acquaintance, Fred, lives in the same town as Billy, which is one of the wealthiest areas in the United States. In fact, Fred set up the SGO, looking to capture ECCA funds within their shared community… Like Billy, Fred doesn’t particularly care about K-12 public education… It might seem that Fred’s SGO couldn’t distribute funds to families in their ultra-wealthy area, since ECCA has income restrictions for scholarship recipients. That’s not the case. ECCA restricts eligibility to households with an income not greater than 300% their area’s median income. In Fred and Billy’s town, with its soaring household incomes, even multimillionaire families with $500,000 in annual income are eligible… So, Fred is looking to give scholarship money to some wealthy families in his hometown.”
Valant summarizes the result if the “Big, Beautiful” bill is enacted: “This bill would introduce the most significant and costliest new federal education program in decades. It has virtually no quality-control measures, transparency provisions, protections against discrimination, or evidence to suggest that it is likely to improve educational outcomes. It’s very likely to redirect funds from poor (and rural) areas to wealthy areas.”
