You may have read about Josh Cowen . He’s a professor of Education Policy at Michigan State University. For twenty years, he worked on voucher research, hoping to find definitive evidence that vouchers helped the neediest kids–or didn’t.
About two years ago, he concluded that the answer was clear: vouchers do not help the neediest kids. Most are claimed by kids who never attended public schools. In other words, they are subsidies for families who already pay for private schools. When low-income kids use vouchers, the academic results are abysmal. He concluded that the best way to improve the schooling of American students is to invest in public schools.
Josh did his best to stop the billionaire-funded voucher drive. He published a book about the evidence, called The Privateers. He wrote articles in newspapers across the nation. He testified before legislative committees.
He concluded that the most important thing he could do is to run for Congress. He’s doing that and needs our help. I’ve contributed twice. Please give whatever you can.
Public schools need a champion in Congress.
Josh writes:
Hey everyone. You may have heard that I’m running for Congress in my home district in Michigan. It’s one of the most important seats to flip next year for Democrats to retake the US House. I’m hoping you’d consider chipping in today to help us meet a big deadline by 9/30.
I’m probably the most prominent congressional candidate in the country running in part on the idea that we need to stand up for and renew our public schools.
I took on Betsy DeVos and the Koch operation all over the country, trying to stop school voucher schemes. I’m a union member and work closely with labor—check out my book excerpt about vouchers in AFT’s New Educator right now!—and I was just given NEA’s highest honor, the Friend of Education award. Diane herself won a few years back—I’m truly honored.
But the DeVoses and a MAGA Texas billionaire are going to spend big here to hold Congress and defund schools. Former MI GOP Governor Rick Snyder is planning to raise $30 million to make 2026 the “education election” for Republicans in Michigan. This is the same guy at the helm when kids were poisoned in Flint. And the same guy responsible for the disastrous EAA charter school fiasco.
My GOP opponent is the Koch’s bagman in Michigan. This is a guy who eked out a win in our district just last year when Elissa Slotkin had to give up her seat to run for Senate. So it’s a very winnable race. But we need help.
Last month just for starters: 14 statewide and local school and community leaders in Michigan endorsed us. Last week, UNITE HERE!, the big hospitality workers union, endorsed our campaign. And just this week, Dr. Jill Underly, the statewide elected chief of Wisconsin public schools, announced her support. You may remember that Dr. Underly beat back Elon Musk’s plan to buy the off-year elections just this spring in her state. She showed how a strong, positive message of standing up for public schools and standing up to billionaires can win a swing state election.
We can do that too. So I’m asking for your help to close this month strong.
This post is about the brutal tactics of ICE. In the instance described, ICE agents broke into the home of a U.S. citizen at 5:30 am, smashing his doors. Five people were arrested, two of them American citizens. One who was handcuffed and shown on television being led away by ICE was the homeowner, an American citizen, born in Texas.
Every time I see one of these ICE videos, I get outraged. I have seen them knocking people to the ground who were photographing them. I have seen them smash car windows and drag people out through the window. I have seen them brutalizing people suspected of being illegal. I have seen them beat up protestors. All while wearing a mask, but not a badge or shield. and I keep wondering, “is this America?”
Joyce Vance served as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. She knows the law and she has a deep love of justice, compassion, and America.
She writes a blog called Civil Discourse, where this excerpt appeared. She is appalled by ICE’s thuggish tactics, and also by Kristi Noem’s showboat tactics. Noem’s behavior towards others reminds us that she killed a young dog because she couldn’t train him. She is known as “Ice Barbie.”
Vance reminds us that ICE in earlier days followed the law. Now, many people object to its actions, specifically, snatching people off the street, throwing them into an unmarked van, disappearing them, all without a warrant. And the masks! Are they being arrested or kidnapped? No one knows. No wonder people call them “Trump’s Brownshirts.”
Vance writes:
For weeks now, the news has been a deluge, making it impossible to keep up with everything. This week so far has been no exception. We know that this is intentional, at least in part. It tends to distract from things like the fact that the Epstein Files have yet to be released. There’s a constant hum of Trump’s incessant push to grow a more muscular, imperial presidency that will allow the Article II branch of government to eclipse the Article I and Article III branches.
But some days, it can be helpful to stop and focus on one small incident to get a snapshot of what’s happening. Today, I focused on some reporting about ICE, one of the agencies under the control of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.
A lot has been written about how Trump has transformed ICE. I know many of you have seen that and are deeply concerned by it, as am I.
ICE’s congressionally designated mission focuses on immigration enforcement and transnational crime. When I was a prosecutor, we worked serious cases with ICE agents. They were competent investigators. They knew how to get cases done. We did some of the early crypto for crime cases with them and also international networks that were engaged in human sex trafficking, drug trafficking, and elder abuse. They worked computer intrusion cases that had a transnational aspect. We did immigration cases with them, focusing on prosecuting people who were illegally in the U.S. after a prior deportation and who had violent criminal history or were involved in gangs. But what we didn’t do was bust into an American citizen’s house at 5:30 a.m. with the DHS Secretary along.
Newsweek reported that Noem “joined federal immigration agents during an early morning operation in Elgin, Illinois, on Tuesday that resulted in multiple people being led away in handcuffs, and two U.S. citizens being briefly detained.” CBS reported that five people were arrested during the raid, among them two U.S. citizens, who were released after showing their papers.
It’s a simple, red brick, ranch-style house. Witness video, taken after a pre-dawn explosion was heard by neighbors, shows agents peeking into the home, a helicopter flying overhead with a spotlight right on the house in what people in the video describe as a “very quiet neighborhood.”
This is what Noem posted Tuesday morning, characterizing the men, including the two U.S. citizens who were subsequently released, as violent offenders.
By 8:30 a.m. local time, DHS was responding to these reports, tweeting that “No U.S. citizens were arrested, they were briefly held for their and officers’ safety while the operation in the house was underway. This is standard protocol. Please see our release on those arrested.”
American Immigration Council Senior Fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick tweeted that the man seen in the video was a U.S. citizen named Joe Botello. “They smashed in the doors, dragged him and his roommates out in handcuffs, then posted a video online suggesting he was a criminal, despite knowing he was released soon after,” he wrote, relying on a report from the Chicago Tribune. The agents were masked and armed when they made forcible entry into Botello’s home, destroying both his front door and a glass patio door, according to the Tribune. An agent asked the Texas-born Botello, “how he was able to speak English so well.”
It was another poorly executed raid where people’s rights, in this case, American citizens, were violated.
By the way, the Secretary’s presence might seem like a small thing here, but it’s not. It’s not amusing. It’s not cosplay. It’s not cute. It’s not shake your head and then look away. It’s dangerous. And it was done, apparently, for a photo op.
I spoke with my former colleague Sarah Saldaña, who served as the Director of ICE from 2014 to 2017 and as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas from 2011 to 2014. She was the last presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed Director of ICE. I asked her about participating in law enforcement actions. She told me, “ICE removal operations in the field are highly sensitive and potentially dangerous events. Enforcement removal officers are fully armed and trained to respond to various, often unexpected scenarios that they might encounter. Our focus in removal operations under the Obama Administration was on individuals who presented threats to national security and public safety, and those with convictions of serious criminal offenses. As Director and with training only as an attorney and agency manager, I would never have considered actually interjecting myself into the execution of such an operation. I could easily represent a distraction to officers and, without the proper training, present a danger to them, the persons sought, and to myself.”
Noem, too, should be concerned about the security risk her presence creates. Furthermore, if Noem accompanied agents to the scene, as the reporting indicates, she made herself a witness. If I’m a criminal defense lawyer for one of the men or a plaintiff’s lawyer in a civil suit, I’m cutting the subpoena for her testimony pronto. This is why smart prosecutors know better than to go along when a search warrant is executed, let alone an attorney general or a cabinet secretary. But Noem likes her photo ops. It’s just another sign of the less-than-professional way Trump’s appointees are running government, following Pam Bondi’s comments about prosecuting people for First Amendment-protected speech earlier this week.
Just as members of Congress challenged FBI Director Kash Patel during his oversight hearing on the Hill today, we have to continue to speak out and challenge Noem, Bondi, Kennedy, and others who aren’t up to doing the job the American people deserve. Americans speaking up is precisely what this administration doesn’t want. They want us to be overwhelmed by all the stories about all the things. They want us to be intimidated from exercising our right to speak, lest we fall under attack too. So, our job is to make sure that doesn’t happen. “Courage is contagious” is becoming one of our mottos for this administration. Keep focusing on the truth. Keep speaking out. Keep going.
The Idaho state legislature passed a $50 million plan to subsidize vouchers. The usual arguments for vouchers–choice and competition–don’t apply in a largely rural state. The primary beneficiaries will be wealthy families whose children are already enrolled in private schools. The biggest losers will be rural schools, which desperately need upgrades.
“(I)t shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” — Article IX, Section 1, Idaho Constitution
A coalition of public school advocates announced Wednesday that it is asking the Idaho Supreme Court to rule that a refundable tax credit for families who send their kids to private schools is a violation of the Idaho constitution’s education clause.
We say it’s about time.
And just in time, since House Bill 93, which was passed last legislative session, allows families to start applying for the credits in January.
The law set aside up to $50 million for the tax credits.
We would much rather see that $50 million go toward the public education system, hiring more teachers, more counselors, repairing derelict school buildings and properly funding special education, which has an $80 million shortfall, according to the Office of Performance Evaluations.null
Most voucher schemes in other states started out like Idaho’s — small, limited and targeted. But state after state, the vouchers grew and are blowing holes in state budgets everywhere.
Many of these vouchers go to wealthy families who already have the means to pay for private school, and the vouchers merely subsidize part of the cost of a private school tuition.
The vouchers are open to fraud, waste and abuse.
There’s no accountability built into Idaho’s voucher system.
The Idaho Supreme Court won’t be interested in such policy discussions, but justices will be interested in hearing what we think is a valid constitutional argument.
One word, in particular, provides their best legal challenge: “uniform.”
We are compelled by the testimony Wednesday of one mother who said her children were denied entry to a public school based on their religion. A public school can’t do that.
The argument is not without precedent.
A district court judge in Salt Lake City halted Utah’s education savings account programearlier this year, according to Idaho Education News. The state’s teachers’ union argued that the Utah Constitution bars state dollars from funding an education system that’s not free or open to all students.
In June, an Ohio state judge struck down that state’s voucher program, ruling that the program created a separate, unfunded, nonpublic system and funneled public money to private religious institutions. That, the judge ruled, violated constitutional mandates to fund a single public school system.
In 2024, the South Carolina Supreme Court struck down a 2023 law that created a private school voucher system. The court said the law illegally funneled state public funds to private schools, which is prohibited by the state constitution. The decision said vouchers undermine the state’s mandate to support public schools for all students.
We find it particularly appropriate that Idaho’s organizers announced this legal challenge on Constitution Day. Yes, it’s referring to the U.S. Constitution, but Idaho legislators should hold Idaho’s Constitution in equally high regard.
Where are all of Idaho’s “original meaning,” “not a living document” conservatives in this state when it comes to the state constitution’s education clause?
Because, if you read the Idaho Constitution plainly, vouchers just don’t pass muster.
Let’s hope the Idaho Supreme Court sees it the same way.
Statesman editorials are the opinion of the Idaho Statesman’s editorial board. Board members are opinion editor Scott McIntosh, opinion writer Bryan Clark, editor Chadd Cripe, newsroom editors Dana Oland and Jim Keyser and community members John Hess, Debbie McCormick and Julie Yamamoto
John Kuhn is the superintendent of schools in Abilene, Texas. He was hired by the Abilene school board in April 2024. He previously served as superintendent in three small districts in Texas. The Abilene board introduced him this way
Dr. John Kuhn brings 27 years of proven experience in public education to Abilene ISD. Prior to joining the Abilene ISD team, Dr. Kuhn most recently served as Superintendent of Schools for Mineral Wells ISD. He has also served as superintendent of Perrin-Whitt CISD and as a high school principal, assistant principal, teacher, and bus driver in the Mineral Wells and Graford Independent School Districts.
I met John Kuhn at a conference of the Network for Public Education about a dozen years ago. At that time, he was superintendent of the Perrin-Whitt Distrist, which has about 320 students, half of whom are economically disadvantaged.
John is one of the most eloquent champions of public education that I’ve ever met. I remember him saying, “Send me the kids you don’t want. Send me the kids who don’t speak English. Send me the kids who are struggling to learn. Send me the kids with disabilities. I’m in a public school and we will teach them all.” Or words to that effect. I’m hoping he will be a keynote speaker at our next conference in Houston in April 2026. He’s the leader we need!
He posted this letter on his Facebook page and it drew a massive response and national attention.
Gosh where to begin? I’m eligible to retire in January, and I don’t want to because I feel like I owe the good people who hired me and this great community at least a few years of blood sweat and tears. I work for a great school board in a city I’ve absolutely fallen in love with. But holy moly do I want to pack it in right now. The burden is heavy.
Yesterday I spent hours at an update listening to the impacts on teachers and admins at public schools of bill after bill passed by our lege. Did you know that one bill says teachers are going to be required to catalogue every book in their classrooms? Kindergarten teachers have hundreds of tiny books. With what time? When?
Did you know that another bill says nurses can’t provide any health care whatsoever and counselors can’t provide any emotional support whatsoever without a written permission slip from parents? The bill language is so poorly written that—despite what it clearly says in black and white English—the bill author sent out a clarification saying nurses can provide a band-aid to a kid who is bleeding. He wouldn’t have to send out a clarification if they wouldn’t pass dumb bills—but legislators have been convinced by political groups who hate public schools that everyone inside them are wicked, evil people.
Did you know about the other new bill that says school administrators who work on the side as refs or one-act-play judges at any school anywhere are subject to a $10k fine per offense for working those jobs if they each individually don’t present a contract to their school board.
That doesn’t apply to me, but I know tons of APs and principals who ref and judge student drama contests. In fact, there’s a huge shortage of both, so if they didn’t do it, we’d be in an even bigger bind in trying to put on games. Again, the bill author had to put out a “clarification” claiming the bill doesn’t mean what it clearly says.
Because they refused to listen to the input of our educator groups—groups, by the way, that they are trying to get defunded because they consider them “taxpayer funded lobbyists” for representing school districts and municipalities.
There is a political movement to pull the teeth of local officials at schools and on city councils and county commissioners courts so that all we have is centralized state leadership. So local yokels like yours truly have to be continually demonized and legislated into submission.
I haven’t even talked about vouchers draining our public schools of resources so those education dollars can go toward private schools that aren’t subject to the crushing bureaucracy. I haven’t event talked about the new testing bill—the one that replaces STAAR with the 3x per year Death STAAR that, like its predecessor tests is solely owned and controlled by the TEA commissioner and is not norm-referenced so Texas student results can be compared to other states, which would keep things honest and prevent the manipulation of student results for political narrative-building.
Anyway, I go to a conference all day listening to this stuff the day after Republican Charlie Kirk is murdered and months after a Democratic state senator is murdered, and I just keep thinking, is it worth it? I can retire and keep to myself until I die of old age. I can just fish every single day. I can travel. I can camp. I can sleep in.
And I get to my hotel room and find some social media commenter calling my teachers “demons” because they assigned an chapter of the amazing book Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close as a reading passage for a freshman honors English class. This is a book written in the voice of a nine-year-old boy who lost his dad on 9/11 in the terrorist attack on the twin towers. It’s an award winning book. But the passage has the word “shit” in it. And it has a vulgar term that I’m told the teacher was unfamiliar with it. And it has a crude joke about talking butts, which I was a nine-year-old boy and that’s the kind of crudeness we giggle at, so the author was pretty spot on. It also has the word “pussy” but that was what the kid called his cat, but the Facebook post highlighted it as part of making a case that this book was inappropriate.
Thing is, it’s likely valid that this book should be restricted to older kids—17 and 18 year olds. It’s worth noting that this was assigned to only the honors kids because the other passage that the class was reading—also related to 9/11–was at too easy a reading level. So these poor teachers are trying to find something for advanced kids to read, and they don’t have time, and they’re making a good faith effort to push kids to Meets and Masters because they care (and if our A-F grade is too low, there is outrage over that too). And they pick this award-winning book. They decide one “shit” is tolerable. They aren’t offended by the word “pussy” because it literally isn’t a bad word in the context. They get it approved by a colleague.
And they are called “DEMONS.” (Ironically, in the comments of the outrage post, they’re also called “assholes,” which is literally worse than “anus,” which is one of the words the parent highlighted and took offense to, but nobody scolded the commenter for that vulgarity. What’s good for the goose… Commenters also typed “wtf” and “WTH,” which mean “what the fuck” and “what the hell” but nobody accused them of “grooming” children. Selective outrage, anyone.
Who needs this? Is everybody serious? Does everyone just feel absolutely compelled to post their moral superiority online by attacking perceived enemies they’ve never met or shared a meal with.
Our country is no longer capable of living in community. We’ve been driven to our corners. It is barely possible to be a public servant anymore. I totally get why our city manager retired.
My teachers aren’t demons. They may have made a mistake in assigning this book to 15-year-olds rather than 17-year-olds, and for that there are people online saying they need to be fired. Today Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close is likely temporarily coming off our library shelves while we review our book challenge policies. Read the book. It’ll make you cry.
We can’t win in public ed anymore. This is absolutely ridiculous. If I make it to December, it’s gonna be a miracle. I don’t need your sympathy replies, either. I’ll hang it up when I have to for my family and my health, and I’ll stick it out if I feel like I want to. In the meantime, I just want you to know I’m sick of politicians playing divisive politics and leaving local public servants to clean up the mess. Public schools are apolitical entities with the job of teaching kids to think critically and become awesome humans. We aren’t perfect. We have missteps, because we are human organizations. But don’t call my teachers DEMONS while you cuss in the comments.
Bill Phillis of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy in Funding reported on the continuing fight to stop universal vouchers in Wyoming. Every student in the state is eligible for a voucher, regardless of family income. Parents are concerned that their child may be excluded by private schools, such as those with special needs. Parents and teachers sued to block the program, based on the state Constitution. A judge just approved their request to sue.
Phillis writes:
School vouchers have never been supported by a majority of the people of any state in a statewide ballot. Neither are school vouchers currently being approved by the courts. Wyoming judge denies state’s motion to dismiss. In June, EdChoice vouchers in Ohio were declared unconstitutional by Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jaiza Page.
All states have constitutional provisions for public education. (After the Civil War no state could be admitted into the Union without a constitutional provision for public education.) The plain language of state constitutions require public education available for all, but not private education as a state funding responsibility. Private schools should not expect to be supported by public funds.
Laramie District Court judge finds plaintiffs do have standing to claim harm in lawsuit against the state’s new school-choice program, which remains in limbo.
In the latest blow to Wyoming’s controversial universal school voucher program, a judge has denied the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit challenging it.
The Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act program has been dogged by constitutionality concerns since well before it was enacted into law in March. Educators and parents filed suit in June, and Wyoming’s attempts to advance the voucher payments in the face of the lawsuit have repeatedly failed.
The program is designed to offer Wyoming families $7,000 per child annually for K-12 non-public-school costs like tuition or tutoring. The scholarship would also offer money for pre-K costs, but only to income-qualified families at or below 250% of the federal poverty level. It was passed amid a wave of school-choice laws, particularly in Republican-led states like Wyoming.
However, Wyoming’s constitution makes public education a paramount state commitment. Critics of the universal voucher program say spending public funds on private education violates several of the state’s constitutional obligations and have long warned the matter would end up in the courts.
So far, state gambits to circumvent legal challenges have been unsuccessful. Laramie County District Court Judge Peter Froelicher granted a temporary injunction pausing the voucher program in June, then extended that injunction in July. More recently, he denied a request by Wyoming Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan
Degenfelder and others to let the law take effect while they challenge the injunction.
In the newest decision, issued Aug. 28, Froelicher denied the state’s motion to dismiss, determining that plaintiffs do have standing to sue. In the order, Froelicher also determined that Wyoming’s State Treasurer Curt Meier, who the lawsuit names, is a valid defendant. The state asked that Meier be dropped from the suit.
Degenfelder, who championed the voucher program as a major school-choice win, has expressed dismay over the lawsuit’s impacts on families who had already applied and were awaiting funds to pay for costs like textbooks, tutoring or private school uniforms for the 2025-26 school year.
Rocky road
The universal voucher program represents a major expansion of the state’s 2024 education savings accounts, which offered money to income-qualified students for private school tuition or homeschool costs.
The 2025 bill transformed that program by stripping income qualifications so that the $7,000 would be available to everyone.
Lawmakers transformed it before it passed out of the Legislature; they brought 26 amendments, including 11 that passed. They also repeatedly questioned the constitutionality of the expanded program. Many urged colleagues to hold off and allow the existing education savings account program to roll out before changing it so drastically. Those requests did not sway the body.
The new program’s application opened on May 15, attracting nearly 4,000 student applications. But in June, nine parents of school-aged children and the Wyoming Education Association, which represents more than 6,000 of the state’s public school employees, sued Degenfelder, Meier and the state of Wyoming.
A previous Wyoming Supreme Court ruling on education funding “found that ‘education is a fundamental right’ in Wyoming, that ‘all aspects of the school finance system are subject to strict scrutiny,’ and that ‘any state action interfering with [the right to equal educational opportunity] must be closely examined before it can be said to pass constitutional muster,’” the lawsuit reads.
This voucher program, plaintiffs assert, does not pass that muster. That’s because “the state cannot circumvent those requirements by funding private education that is not uniform and that meets none of the required state constitutional standards for education.”
In addition, the program is unconstitutional because it violates constitutional language that allows the state to give public funds only for the necessary support of the poor, the lawsuit argues. Instead, it’s an example of “gratuitously funneling public funds to private individuals and entities, regardless of whether they are poor and regardless of whether that support is necessary.”
Parents who signed onto the case oppose the voucher plan due to the harmful impact it will have on their children, according to the lawsuit, “because private schools receiving voucher funding can refuse admission to children with disabilities … and are not required to provide special education services or comply with [individualized education programs].” They are also concerned that private schools can refuse to admit and educate children who identify as queer, transgender or non-binary.
The voucher program will also negatively impact funding at public schools that the parents’ children attend, the lawsuit says.
By rejecting the state’s motion to dismiss, Froelicher accepts “the individual harms alleged in the complaint as true,” according to his order.
What’s next
The Wyoming Attorney General’s office in July appealed Froelicher’s preliminary injunction preventing the Wyoming Department of Education from transferring or paying out funds to participants of the program.
In a July update on the Wyoming Department of Education’s site, Degenfelder said she is grateful the attorney general appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court, but informed the public that “the appeals process is still extensive, and, unless the injunction is stayed while the appeal proceeds, may cause the program funds to be unavailable for most of the 2025-26 school year.”
Katie Klingsporn reports on outdoor recreation, public lands, education and general news for WyoFile. She’s been a journalist and editor covering the American West for 20 years. Her freelance work has… More by Katie Klingsporn
The Network for Public Education Action sent out the following alert. Please use the form to send a letter to your members of Congress.
Dear Friend of Public Schools.
They said they wouldn’t cut Title I. They lied.
Majority House leaders just dropped their FY26 education bill, slashing $12.1 billion (15%) in K-12 funding for public education. It guts the very programs that keep our public schools running — while boosting charter start-up/expansion to $500,000,000.
What they’re cutting:
Title I:–27% slashed — funding that provides targeted education services like remedial reading to students with maximum impact in high-poverty schools in cities and rural communities.
English Language Acquisition Grants: Gone.
Title II-A (teacher training & support): Eliminated.
“Despite outsized investment, America’s public schools continue to fail children and families.” That’s what they think of your neighborhood school.
Why this matters
Cuts of this magnitude will crowd classrooms, strip student supports, widen inequities, and push more schools into crisis — especially in rural and high-need communities.
Do these two things now
1) Email your Representative:
Use our action link to send a pre-written message in 15 seconds: Send your email now.
2) Call your Representative:
Find your member’s phone number here. Below is a script you can use right now: “Hello, I’m a constituent from [Representative’s name] district. I’m calling to urge the Representative to oppose the House education funding bill that cuts Title I by 27% and reduces K12 funding by 15%. These cuts will harm students and teachers in our district. Please vote NO and support full funding for public schools — not half-a-billion in funding for charter expansion while our classrooms are being cut. Thank you.”
Now spread the word
Forward this alert to friends, family, and colleagues.
Do not wait. Congress is back today (September 2). Let’s flood their inboxes and phone lines. The House’s education funding bill is a betrayal of America’s children.
We Can’t Do What We Do Without Your Support…
Every email we send out with our action alerts costs hundreds of dollars in addition to our other operational expenses that keep us going. We need your help. Please click on the image below to make a one-time donation, or better yet, a recurring donation. Even ten dollars a month makes a huge difference for us. Thank you in advance for your generosity that will help preserve our public schools.
Richard Rothstein recently wrote a book about how to resist the illegal, unjust, and tyrannical actions of the Trump regime. Protests and marches are good but not enough, he argues. It’s time to find more powerful ways to express opposition to tyranny, to dictatorship, to a police state.
Please share this article with friends and social media. And please suggest your own ideas for direct action.
My 2017 book, The Color of Law, showed that “de facto,” accidental, neighborhood segregation is a myth; in truth, government purposely enforced it, creating racial inequality in wealth, education, employment, health, and criminal justice. Readers asked, “What can we do about it now?”
So in 2023, Leah Rothstein and I published a sequel, Just Action, that showed how community groups could remedy this unconstitutional system. Intended for normal times, its suggestions for direct action have become urgent when Trump’s unlawful policies in housing and other sectors call for resistance. Just Action and follow-up articles describe how to create diverse committees that can embrace all who seek to preserve democracy.
Trump has taken full control of federal power—executive, legislative, and judicial—to:
destroy our already inadequate safety net;
gut health and environmental protections;
promote racial and ethnic inequality;
threaten the security of immigrants and their citizen children;
suppress free speech and independent journalism; and
prohibit schools from teaching historical truth.
He’s now moved to rig elections in 2026 and 2028, so will no longer depend on popular support. Marches, rallies, and media outrage remain necessary but insufficient. We are now called upon to do more than protest, but to act. What John Lewis called “good trouble, necessary trouble” becomes essential. As Trump “floods the zone” with so many illegal policies that we can’t keep up, so should resistance emerge in many sectors and communities to throw his authoritarianism off balance.
Most resistance will be law-abiding, some with civil disobedience. A decent society won’t be restored from Washington. A movement with a strong popular base can only begin with committees that pursue opportunities in their own neighborhoods, towns, and cities.
Here are two from Just Action, with details and many more examples in the book:
Regional housing centers have insufficient resources to uncover much discrimination and Trump has made it worse by defunding them. Volunteers can do the uncovering, then bypass the Justice Department by taking cases directly to court. They can campaign to force apartment owners and realtors who discriminate to commit to reform and organize boycotts of those who refuse.
The administration no longer deems policies unlawful if they unintentionally but needlessly harm historically disadvantaged groups. For example, property assessments usually create higher tax rates for homeowners and landlords who live in lower-income areas. Community groups can campaign to make county assessment practices fair.
Committees with actions like these will develop experience that builds toward resistance in other sectors and a national movement.
After Just Action’s publication, Washington State challenged the federal refusal to remedy housing discrimination. Volunteers documented 80,000 home deeds that banned residents who weren’t considered “white,” causing large wealth gaps between descendants of white people and others. A statewide organizing campaign won a state subsidy for home purchases by members of the previously excluded groups; 300 households have now received assistance, averaging over $100,000 each. Leah Rothstein has described how the reform was won. Groups elsewhere can mobilize for similar victories.
The Justice Department has cancelled settlements that required police to end abusive practices. Local groups can organize “blue ribbon” commissions to adopt the agreements and then campaign to grant them legal power to monitor and enforce compliance.
The administration has threatened public schools that teach “divisive” history, such as slaves’ suffering, Native Americans’ extermination, Japanese Americans’ World War II internment, or racial inequality’s origins. Local committees can organize support for teachers told to avoid these topics and for school board candidates who have pledged to protect truth in curriculum.
The Greyhound bus company will not permit warrantless or suspicionless immigration arrests on buses or in its stations. The Los Angeles Dodgers prohibits ICE from entering its parking lots without a warrant. Retail stores, markets, and restaurants should post signs announcing a similar prohibition. Customers can organize to ensure that it is advertised and enforced.
Campaigning for democratic practices starts by inviting friends and associates to plan. But we mostly interact only with people like ourselves. That’s no formula for successful resistance. Just Action begins by describing those who reached beyond their bubbles. We report on a Chicago artist who photographed pairs of nearly identical homes, one in a North Side white area, the other in a South Side Black one. She then invited residents to meet their “map twins.” Many agreed and were astonished by how much they had in common. We also recount six churches in Winston-Salem—three white and three Black—whose ministers created an interracial discussion and social group of 40 parishioners, divided equally by race. It eventually took direct action, successfully campaigning for a police review board and school curriculum reform.
Leah Rothstein reported recently on a project that organizes monthly dinner meetings of 25 residents from Marin City, California—with a mostly Black population—and 25 from its predominantly white suburbs. Reforms resulted in education, policing, health care, the arts, and housing. They model what diverse resistance cells can achieve.
Indivisible, the organization that led “Hands Off” and “No Kings” rallies this year, has concluded that while vocal opposition to Trump remains necessary, successful resistance must evolve to direct action. Indivisible is now conducting online training to teach and inspire local committees to undertake acts of resistance. You can watch previous sessions and register for subsequent ones here. These should offer more examples of direct actions you could take.
Please click here to share other acts of resistance, so Leah and I can promote them.
Jan Resseger reports some surprisingly good news: the Senate Appropriations Committee passed an education budget that restored Trump’s cuts to education and disregarded his plan to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education.
Jan sees their action as evidence that public protest works and that the public does not want to abandon federal funding of schools. Jan also cautions that education may yet be imperiled by Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. Vought was overall writer and editor of “Project 2025” and McMahon is a dedicated ideologue.
Nonetheless, it’s heartening to know that some Republicans were willing to stand up to Trump and Reject one of his worst ideas.
She begins:
On July 31st, K-12 Dive’s Kara Arundel reported some very good news: “The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a bipartisan spending bill for fiscal year 2026 (FY 26) that would prevent the executive branch from removing Title I and special education programs to agencies outside the U.S. Department of Education. The legislation also rejects several other funding reforms proposed by the Trump administration… In total, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommends funding the Education Department in FY 26 at $79 billion…. That’s $12.3 billion more than President Donald Trump’s proposal of $66.7 billion. In the current fiscal year, the Education Department is funded at $78.7 billion.”
The American Bar Association has filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration’s policy of intimidating lawyers and law firms. The article was written by Mimi Rocah, former District Attorney, former prosecutor, and currently law professor. It was posted at Cafe, a blog for legal issues.
She wrote:
Last week, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) filed what can fairly be described as a bombshell lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C. The suit asks the court to declare unconstitutional and stop the Trump administration’s “ongoing unlawful policy of intimidation against lawyers and law firms.” The ABA, a non-partisan non-profit organization founded in 1878, is the nation’s largest voluntary association of legal professionals. It is represented in this case by powerhouse law firm Sussman Godfrey (one of the firms targeted by an executive orderearlier this year). This isn’t just any lawsuit. The complaint names the Office of the President and—in light of the Trump administration’s proclivity to dodge the “who’s responsible” question—every high level government department, along with every cabinet official (the caption goes on for eight pages). The normally staid organization has found its voice on this issue over the past few months, issuing several statements and launching a rule of law initiative, and it does not mince words in this lawsuit, stating, “Today,…the American legal profession faces a challenge that is different from all that has come before. It is unprecedented and uniquely dangerous to the rule of law.”
The complaint explains the administration’s strategy to essentially weaken the legal profession that it sees as a threat to its agenda: “Since taking office earlier this year, President Trump has used the vast powers of the Executive Branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like.” It has done so “through a series of materially identical executive orders designed to severely damage particular law firms and intimidate other firms and lawyers…; a series of similar ‘deals’ or ‘settlements’ between the Administration and certain law firms in order to avoid such Orders or have them rescinded; other related executive orders, letters, and memoranda. . . and public statements by the President and his Administration publicizing the objectives of the Law Firm Intimidation Policy.” The “attacks on law firms…are thus not isolated events, but one component of a broader, deliberate policy designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the President or his Administration in court, or from even speaking publicly in support of policies or causes that the President does not like.” Finally, the ABA explains that despite four different district court judges finding the orders blatantly unconstitutional and illegal, the administration’s strategy is ongoing. It cites reporting as recent as June 1st indicating Trump and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller’s interest in keeping threats of more “executive orders on the table because they think it dissuades the best lawyers from representing critics of the administration.”
Why is the “Law Firm Intimidation Policy” (as dubbed in the lawsuit) so insidious? In a nutshell, it “is uniquely destructive because of the critical role that its targets—lawyers—fulfill in our constitutional system. Without skilled lawyers to bring and argue cases—and to do so by advancing the interests of their clients without fear of reprisal from the government—the judiciary cannot function as a meaningful check on executive overreach.” Even worse, the ABA documents the administration’s strategy having the desired impact. “Even as federal judges have ruled over and over that the Law Firm Orders are plainly unconstitutional, law firms that once proudly contributed thousands of hours of pro bono work to a host of causes—including causes championed by the ABA—have withdrawn from such work because it is disfavored by the Administration, particularly work that would require law firms to litigate against the federal government.” Many law firms are laying low, and “organizations (including the ABA) that have historically relied heavily on top law firms to bring pro bono cases—particularly against the federal government to challenge unlawful executive action—face serious and sometimes existential crises, as those same law firms are declining to represent these organizations.” The complaint cites examples of such instances from particular law firms and, chillingly, does so anonymously in ways reminiscent of a prosecutor’s charging documents against mob families out of real fear of retaliation. As the complaint states, “This threat has a deliberately powerful chilling effect. Already, many firms are declining to take on cases that challenge the administration’s policies. That’s not a side effect of the crackdown. It was the purpose all along.”
The federal judiciary, especially at the district court level, has been the sand in the gears to this administration’s unlawful orders and unconstitutional agenda, which has cast aside due process and the First Amendment in ways never seen before. In May alone, the White House lost 96 percent of its cases before federal district courts, with appointees of both Democrat and Republican presidents curbing the excesses of the Trump regime. As one expert explained, that the “rulings are coming from a stunningly broad array of jurists and many aren’t even being challenged on appeal” is an indication of both the continued need for these legal challenges and also the flimsy legal ground on which the administration stands. But courts cannot adjudicate cases that aren’t brought—and that requires lawyers willing to challenge a retributive and vengeful administration. Our legal system, and the rights of so many individuals and perhaps even our democracy, depend on it. If lawyers are afraid of what will happen to them if they stand up and oppose the government, then the whole system collapses. As the ABA emphasizes in its lawsuit, the judiciary needs to be strong and independent referees, but it needs lawyers willing to play the field.
We will see how this important lawsuit plays out. The case is assigned to Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali who has already drawn the ire of Trump loyalists for daring to rule against the executive order cutting funding for foreign assistance programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Inevitably, this will likely end up before the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts has talked a good game about judicial independence. Hopefully he and the other justices recognize that such an ideal cannot exist without lawyers able to act free from coercive intimidation by the full force of the presidency.
Stay Informed,
Mimi
CAFE Contributor Mimi Rocah is the former District Attorney for Westchester County, and previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and Division Chief for the Southern District of New York. She is currently an adjunct professor at Fordham School of Law.
Diane Ravitch's blog 