Archives for category: Trump

Blame Musk: Why Tesla is in Big Trouble

March 23, 2025 //

Tesla is in trouble for two reasons: first, Elon Musk entered politics and alienated half the nation’s voters. He didn’t just endorse Trump, he created the slash-and-burn DOGE, which is firing government workers en masse without cause. More people are trading in Teslas than any other brand. Protests are taking place at Tesla showrooms. Teslas are being vandalized by people angry at Musk and his destruction of federal agencies.

Second, a Chinese auto manufacturer recently announced that its electric car can be fully recharged in five minutes, as compared to the hours it takes to recharge a Tesla.

Instead of redesigning our government, Musk should have stuck to building better cars.

Liam Denning wrote about Musk’s woes at Bloomberg News:

Sometimes a chart is just a chart. Sometimes, when you’re looking at Tesla Inc. and BYD Co. Ltd. in early 2025, it’s a striking squiggly metaphor.

Tesla, the biggest US electric-vehicle maker, has shocked the world this year with its overt politicization and slumping sales and stock price. BYD, its great Chinese rival, just shocked the world by announcing its newest model can recharge in five minutes. The symbolism, capturing the lead that China has taken in EVs compared with a US still fighting with itself about the relative wokeness of EVs, could hardly be clearer.

At a Supercharger, you’ll typically be able to add 150 to 200 miles of range to a Tesla in less than 30 minutes—sometimes more, sometimes less. With a typical home EV charger, you can completely recharge a Tesla’s battery overnight, adding roughly 25 to 40 miles of range per hour that it’s plugged in.

Which do you prefer: a battery that recharges in five minutes or one that requires 30 minutes or even hours?

Categories Accountability, Musk, Elon, Politics, Trump

Hundreds of Jewish Academics Protest Trump’s Claim of “Fighting Anti-Semitism” to Attack Universities

By dianeravitch

March 23, 2025 //

A protest letter is circulating among Jewish faculty and students in response to the Trump administration’s attacks on American universities. The specific complaint is that the attacks are cloaked as an effort to “fight anti-Semitism.” The first assault was the federal government’s suspension of $400 million in research grants to Columbia Unicersity on the grounds that the university has failed to root out and punish anti-Semitism. More than 500 Jewish academics have signed a petition denouncing this action as a fraud.

Trump’s war on higher education is not intended to curb anti-Semitism. If anything, it will encourage anti-Semitism by making Jews responsible for the hostile behavior of the Trump administration. Make no mistake: this president responded to an anti-Semitic riot in Charlottesville by saying that there were “very fine people on both sides.” The marchers chanted “Jews will not replace us.” Trump rallies have attracted people wearing swastikas and festooned with Nazi paraphernalia. Trump has attracted the allegiance of Nazis and neo-Nazis. His co-president, Elon Musk, gave the Nazi salute at Trump’s inauguration–not once but twice; right hand on heart, then arm thrust out. Musk has encouraged the rise of car-right and neo-Nazi parties in Europe.

Most Jewish scholars support everything Trump opposes: freedom of the press, academic freedom, freedom to teach, freedom to learn, freedom of speech, and freedom to study diversity, equity, and inclusion in all its forms.

I gladly signed the petition #398). The Trump administration is boldly trying to control the curriculum of higher education and boldly asserting control of intellectual freedom at both public and private universities. Not in my name.

If Trump wants to tamp down anti-Semitism, he could start by denouncing the Nazis and neo-Nazis who are in his MAGA movement. Clean his own Augean stables.

If you wish to add your name, use this link.

Open letter in response to federal funding cuts at Columbia

On March 7th, the Trump administration announced the immediate cancellation of approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University. This includes funding from the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services, which suggests cuts to funding for scholarship and research in law, education, and healthcare. The university was told that these funds were being withheld because they had not done enough to suppress antisemitism, and the same rationale has been since used to propose further cuts to other universities and colleges across the U.S. In other words, the federal government claims it is taking these extraordinary measures in order to protect Jewish students from discrimination.

We are Jewish faculty, scholars, and students at U.S. universities — representative of the community that this administration purports to be protecting from antisemitism on campuses. Let us be clear: These actions do not protect us.

There are many issues on which we, as a group, disagree. We have diverse views on Israel and Gaza, on American politics, and on the Trump administration. We have diverse views on the administration of Columbia University, and on the way it has responded to protests. What unites us is that we refuse to let our Jewish identities be used as a pretext for destroying institutions that have long made America great – American universities and the research and knowledge they produce.

Together, we say: Not on our behalf. Harming U.S. Universities does not protect Jewish people. Cutting funding for research does not protect Jewish people. Punishing researchers and scholars does not protect Jewish people. These actions do, however, limit opportunities for students and scholars – within the Jewish community and beyond – to receive training, conduct research, and engage in free expression.

In fact, harming universities makes everyone less safe, including Jews. History teaches us that the loss of individual rights and freedoms for any group often begins with silencing scientists and scholars, people who devote their lives to the pursuit of knowledge — a pursuit that is core to Jewish culture. Moreover, destroying universities in the name of Jews risks making Jews in particular less safe by setting them up to be scapegoats. Once it becomes clear how much knowledge, and how much human potential, has been lost in the name of combating antisemitism, Jews may be blamed.

U.S. universities have partnered with the U.S. government since 1941, when university research began receiving federal funding and was integral to winning the Second World War. By expanding this partnership after the war, the U.S. has created the best research infrastructure in the world, which has, in turn, enabled the most scientific and technological progress in human history. Do not dismantle this partnership, especially not on the pretense of protecting Jewish people.

Categories Bigotry, Censorship, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom of Speech, Funding, Higher Education, Trump

Jay Kuo Explains What Happened When a Federal Judge Slapped Down Musk and DOGE

By dianeravitch

March 23, 2025 //

Jay Kuo is a lawyer , blogger, and author who here explains a very important court ruling that finally, at last, challenged the constitutionality of Musk and his DOGE vandals. They have gone through agency after agency, copying personal data, firing employees without any knowledge of their role, and generally wreaking havoc.

Anyone with the barest knowledge of the Constitution knows that the power of the purse belongs to Congress, not the President and certainly not to the President’s biggest campaign donor and his team of young hackers. If they know even more about the Constutution, they know that no one can shut down an agency or Department that was authorized by Congress except Congress itself.

One judge said stop.

Jay Kuo explains the decision and why it is important. The post appeared on Wednesday March 19.

He writes:

There are a lot of lawsuits and a lot of moving parts. But best I can tell, yesterday’s ruling from Judge Theodore Chuang of the federal district of Maryland was the first time any judge has directly addressed the illegality of Musk’s appointment as head of DOGE and then ordered his actions unwound.

Specifically, Judge Chuang, in a 68-page preliminary injunction, blasted the illegal appointment of Musk, ruled the ensuing shutdown of USAID by DOGE illegal, and barred Musk and DOGE from any further work at USAID.

A lot has happened since Musk first took the reins at DOGE, so to understand the impact of this order—specifically what it does and does not do within USAID and how it might have ripple effects in other cases—it’s useful to go back in time to the beginning of February, when Musk and DOGE first started taking a chainsaw to the federal government.

“Fed to the woodchipper”

In early February, DOGE workers arrived at USAID and sought access to the agency’s systems. Because USAID operates in many foreign countries, intelligence reports and assessments are commonly generated around its work. When DOGE members attempted to gain access to classified files, two security officials with the agency attempted to stop them. In response to the officials’ frankly heroic actions, they were placed on leave by the administration.

That was one of the first signs things were going to get very bad, very quickly. Musk even bragged online that over that weekend he and DOGE had “fed USAID into the wood chipper.”

DOGE proceeded to cut off email and computer access to USAID workers. Then, as CBS News summarized, hundreds of USAID officials were placed on administrative leave, the agency’s website went dark, email accounts were deactivated, and USAID’s Washington, D.C., headquarters were occupied by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio quickly named himself acting director of USAID and then proceeded to cancel 83 percent of its contracts. This left nonprofits around the world unable to continue their life saving work. The New York Times estimated that USAID’s shutdown would lead to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of deaths worldwide from disease.

Dozens of USAID staffers sued, arguing that Musk’s and DOGE’s actions were wholly unauthorized because Musk was never appointed and confirmed by the Senate, as required under the Constitution. They further argued that only Congress, not the executive branch, has the authority to shutter an agency established by statute rather than by executive order.

An “end-run around the Appointments Clause”

One of the most important parts of Judge Chuang’s ruling confirms that the administration tried to have it both ways with Musk.

On the one hand, there Musk was, with DOGE members already inside of an agency, bragging about how he had destroyed it in the course of a weekend. Musk made public statements and posts claiming he had firm control over DOGE, and Trump even praised Musk for this in his joint address to Congress.

Per the New York Times,

The judge noted that Mr. Musk, during a cabinet meeting he attended at the White House last month, acknowledged that his team had accidentally slashed funding for Ebola prevention administered [by USAID]. He also cited numerous instances in which Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk have both spoken publicly about their reliance on Mr. Musk’s team to effectuate goals like eliminating billions in federal contracts.

In addition to the “wood chipper” post, Judge Chuang noted that Musk wrote in February that it was time for USAID to “die” and that his team was in the process of shutting the agency down.

On the other hand, the government tried to argue that Musk was only serving in some kind of advisory rather than official role. Government attorneys have argued in many cases that Musk does not have formal authority to make government decisions, and therefore he didn’t need to have been formally appointed by Trump and officially confirmed by the Senate.

When pressed as to who was actually in charge of DOGE then, the White House claimed last month that a woman named Amy Gleason, who worked for DOGE’s predecessor, was its acting administrator.

That’s so very odd, because as Kyle Cheney of Politico noted with a journalistic eagle eye, in a recent court filing in another matter the administration revealed that Gleason was actually hired by Health and Human Services as an “expert/consultant” on March 4. That’s just a few days after the White House insisted she was the acting administrator of DOGE.

The fact is, the government has been DOGE-ing the truth for weeks about who was really in charge. Everyone knew and bragged that it was Elon Musk, but that actually created a legal problem because of the pesky Appointments Clause. So they apparently filed false affidavits with the courts to try and backfill the position with someone who was never in charge of it, and then they got caught.

Judge Chuang wrote this while ruling for the plaintiffs on their Appointments Clause claim:

To deny plaintiffs’ Appointments Clause claim solely on the basis that, on paper, Musk has no formal legal authority relating to the decisions at issue, even if he is actually exercising significant authority on governmental matters, would open the door to an end-run around the Appointments Clause.

If a president could escape Appointments Clause scrutiny by having advisors go beyond the traditional role of White House advisors who communicate the president’s priority to agency heads and instead exercise significant authority throughout the federal government so as to bypass duly appointed officers, the Appointments Clause would be reduced to nothing more than a technical formality.

Judge Chuang further noted that Musk appears to have been involved in the closure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau headquarters and that he and DOGE “have taken other unilateral actions without any apparent authorization from agency officials,” including firing staff at the Department of Agriculture and National Nuclear Security Administration.

“Under these circumstances, the evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to defendants’ sweeping claim that Musk acted only as an advisor, Musk made the decisions to shutdown USAID’s headquarters and website even though he ‘lacked the authority to make that decision,’” Chuang wrote, throwing arguments made by the Trump administration right back at them.

Musk’s “unilateral, drastic actions”

Plaintiffs also claimed that the executive branch had acted outside of its authority in seeking to shut down an agency established by congressional statute. Judge Chuang agreed.

“There is no statute that authorizes the Executive Branch to shut down USAID,” Judge Chuang wrote, noting that only Congress has the constitutional authority to eliminate agencies it has created.

“Where Congress has prescribed the existence of USAID in statute pursuant to its legislative powers under Article I, the president’s Article II power to take care that the laws are faithfully executed does not provide authority for the unilateral, drastic actions taken to dismantle the agency,” Chuang wrote.

He concluded, “The public interest is specifically harmed by defendants’ actions, which have usurped the authority of the public’s elected representatives in Congress to make decisions on whether, when and how to eliminate a federal government agency, and of officers of the United States duly appointed under the Constitution to exercise the authority entrusted to them.”

But… he can’t truly undo the damage

The judge was stark in his assessment of the fatal injuries Musk and DOGE have inflicted upon USAID. He noted that because of the firings, the freezing of funds, the locking out of staff access to computers and communications, and the shuttering of the building itself, USAID is no longer capable of performing as required by statute.

“Taken together, these facts support the conclusion that USAID has been effectively eliminated,” Chuang wrote.

And while he ordered DOGE to reinstate email access to all employees and to submit a plan to allow them to reoccupy the building, he acknowledged that it wouldn’t be long before someone with actual authority could allow DOGE back in. That’s because even though something may have been illegal and unauthorized at the time it was done, someone with the proper constitutional and legal authority can in theory come back later and ratify those actions.

That effectively means that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is Senate-confirmed and now the acting director of USAID, is still free in a couple of weeks to order the permanent closure of the main facility in Washington, as he had planned. And even though another judge has ordered $2 billion in USAID’s frozen foreign aid funds released, and there might even be enough employees now available to make that happen, once that work is done USAID might still functionally cease to exist.

So is this an empty victory?

If USAID employees get to return to the building and access their emails and computer systems, only to be kicked out of it later and likely fired all over again, isn’t this just a hollow win?

The ruling may not save USAID from its fate, especially with an administration so bent on eliminating it entirely and the power to ratify DOGE’s activities after the fact. But thinking ahead a bit, this ruling could still throw significant sand in the gears of DOGE going forward.

If Elon Musk is, as Judge Chuang has ruled, the effective head of DOGE, and his position and consequential actions as an effective agency head requires him to have been formally appointed by Trump and confirmed by the Senate, then this will help other litigants in other cases put an immediate stop to what DOGE is doing currently. That could gum things up for Musk, who would suddenly lack the power to slash and burn the government using just his team of hackers.

Instead, the agencies and departments themselves would have to order all of the cuts, cancellations and terminations. And there may be far more statutory limits and processes governing what they as agencies can do. Further, plaintiffs are likely far more accustomed to challenging a familiar foe like a big government agency than an inter-agency, non-transparent wrecking crew like DOGE.

We will have to wait and see how this plays out. But I imagine Judge Chuang’s decision is going to start showing up as a big red stop sign in every case challenging the authority of DOGE to have done what it did and to keep doing what it’s doing.

Categories Accountability, Disruption, Ethics, Failure, Funding, Justice, Musk, Elon, Trump

GOP Wants to Honor Trump Right Now!

By dianeravitch

March 22, 2025 //

Politico reports that Republican members of Congress are competing to honor Trump as the incredible remarkable president that he is: right now.

This is a summary. Open the link to read the adulation heaped on Trump and historians’ reactions.

PLAYBOOK: Members of the Republican-controlled Congress have filed a rush of bills seeking to honor President Donald Trump while he is still in office — a multifront effort that has no precedent in congressional history and underscores the lengths that some House Republicans are willing to go to both curry favor with the president and to demonstrate their support, POLITICO’s Ben Jacobs and Gregory Svirnovskiy write this morning.

A look at the bills: In total, there are five such bills introduced in the House over the past two months, which would: put Trump’s face on the $100 bill, create a new $250 bill with Trump’s face adorning it, make Trump’s birthday (June 14) a federal holiday, rename Dulles Airport in Trump’s honor and carve Trump’s face on Mount Rushmore. While the Republicans crafting these bills say they are well-earned recognition, some scholars of American history view them through a darker lens: “This is exactly what the American Revolution was fought to prevent,” said Princeton’s Sean Wilentz.

Categories Republicans, Stupid, Trump

Robert Kuttner: Trump and the Politics of Cruelty

By dianeravitch

March 22, 2025 //

Donald Trump is not only a sociopath, he is a sadist. He enjoys insulting people, humiliating them, and inflicting suffering.

Robert Kuttner of the Economic Policy Institute–the rare think-tank that sides with working people and unions–wrote about how Trump ruins people’s lives without losing sleep, without any expression of remorse or compassion.

He writes:

The other day, Adrian Walker in The Boston Globe reported the story of Mike Slater, who survived four tours of duty as a U.S. Army infantryman in Iraq and Afghanistan. After suffering PTSD and being rehabilitated by the VA, he began working at the Veterans Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, serving other vets. Last month, as a thank you from his country, Slater was notified by email that his job was terminated, courtesy of orders from DOGE.

We can look forward to hundreds of thousands of these stories. At USAID, people who have devoted their careers to alleviating human disease and starvation are being fired by text message and asked to clean out their desks on two days’ notice.

Soon, there will likely be far more cruelty and suffering, as needy people lose health coverage under a diminished Medicaid, as more families are broken up by ICE raids, and more immigrant workers stop earning a paycheck for fear of being arrested and deported.

It’s not surprising that Trump’s signature is cruelty. This is an entertainer, after all, who got famous with the line “You’re fired!” Trump has always identified with the winners. Suffering people, in Trump’s sick psyche, are losers.

But that was reality TV. This is reality.

In reality TV terms, the ultimate celebrity apprentice winner is Elon Musk, who is rivaling even Trump in the human damage he is doing.

Other Republican presidents have presided over human suffering. Ronald Reagan knocked millions of needy people off the welfare rolls and cut a host of social programs that were preserving a measure of dignity for low-income Americans.

But Reagan disguised the cruelty with his sheer niceness and bogus policy rationalizations that these cutbacks were for people’s own good by compelling them to get a work ethic.

Trump, by contrast, revels in cruelty. His pleasure in sheer cruelty was on display last Friday as he did his best to humiliate Volodymyr Zelensky. The fact that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has resulted in immense human suffering was nowhere on Trump’s radar. Trump’s closing comment was “This is going to be great television.”

When he considers Gaza, Trump doesn’t see the deaths, the human displacements, and the mutilated children. He sees underdeveloped real estate.

When someone crosses Trump, that person must not only be fired, but annihilated. Trump said in a post on Truth Social that Gen. Mark Milley, Trump’s former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, deserved execution.

It’s not exactly news that Trump is a sociopath. The definition of a sociopath is someone who lacks any capacity for human compassion or remorse. Trump goes beyond even that, to sheer sadism.

BUT MOST AMERICANS ARE NOT SOCIOPATHS, much less sadists. Most Americans are kind to their neighbors, support charities, identify compassionately with human suffering. So why isn’t there a much greater outcry against Trump’s delight in cruelty?

It’s a more complex question than it first seems.

For starters, as the Nazi era demonstrated, when the government relies on fear and it is others who are suffering, it’s too easy to avert your eyes. To paraphrase the famous warning of Pastor Martin Niemöller, they came for the immigrants but I am not an immigrant. They are firing civil servants but I am not a civil servant.

Where is the Christian right? Jesus of Nazareth not only taught compassion but lived it. And he preached against the hypocrisy that was rampant among the religious leaders of his day. But the religions established in his name have often been citadels of hypocrisy.

Trump is purely transactional. The religious leaders and their followers who support Trump based on his views on abortion, but ignore his dissolute life, are purely transactional as well. Jesus wept.

There is also the problem of resentment and lack of solidarity. Politico interviewed Trump voters in South Texas. One woman, named Nelda Cruz, was asked about the coming cuts in Medicaid. “I don’t qualify for Medicaid, so fine with me,” she said. “Now they’re going to feel how I feel.”

A fearful, angry, and divided people can become inured to meanness. I would like to believe America is better than that. Trump may yet meet his downfall. But it would be so much more heartening if the cause were not the price of eggs but a mass revulsion against Trump’s sadistic cruelty.

Categories Cruelty, Ethics, Trump

Family Members of Deported Venezuelans Say They Had No Gang Ties

By dianeravitch

March 22, 2025 //

The Miami Herald reports that some of the men who were deported as “dangerous members of a Venezuelan gang” had no gang ties. Since the men were deported without any due process, we have no way of knowing whether they were justly or unjustly arrested and deported.

In the U.S., the law requires due process and a presumption of innocence. The Trump administration bypassed the rule of law so they could create the illusion of a crackdown on dangerous immigrants.

The Miami Herald said:

The day after he was arrested while working at a restaurant in Texas, Mervin Jose Yamarte Fernandez climbed out of a plane in shackles in El Salvador, bound for the largest mega-prison in Latin America. His sister, Jare, recognized him in a video shared on social media. As masked guards shaved detainees’ heads and led them into cells at the maximum-security complex,

Yamarte Fernandez turned his gaze slowly to the camera. “He was asking for help. And that help didn’t come from the lips. It came from the soul,” said Jare, who asked to be identified by her nickname because she fears for her family’s safety and who added her brother has no previous criminal record. “You know when someone has their soul broken.”

Yamarte Fernandez, 29, is among 238 Venezuelans the Trump administration accused of being gang members without providing public evidence and sent over the weekend to El Salvador’s Terrorist Confinement Center, a prison about 45 miles from the capital designed to hold up to 40,000 people as part of a crackdown on gangs. They will be jailed for at least one year, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele said in a statement on X, following a deal brokered between the two countries in February.

His sister identified him in a video shared on social media by the Salvadoran government. “He shouldn’t be imprisoned in El Salvador, let alone in a dangerous prison like the one where the Mara Salvatruchas are held,” his sister told the Miami Herald.

“These heinous monsters were extracted and removed to El Salvador where they will no longer be able to pose any threat to the American people,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

But families of three men who appear to have been deported and imprisoned in El Salvador told the Miami Herald that their relatives have no gang affiliation – and two said their relatives had never been charged with a crime in the U.S. or elsewhere. One has been previously accused by the U.S. government of ties to the feared Tren de Aragua gang, but his family denies any connection.

Neither the Department of Homeland Security nor Immigration and Customs Enforcement responded to Miami Herald questions about what criteria was used to select detainees sent to El Salvador, what the plan is for detainees incarcerated abroad, and whether the government had defied a federal judge’s orders to send them there.

Categories Accountability, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Immigration, Injustice, Trump

Trump Fires Democratic Members of “Independent” Boards

By dianeravitch

March 21, 2025 //

In his desire to control every aspect of the federal government, Trump has fired Democrats whose term has not expired on independent boards; terminated nonpartisan Departmental Inspectors General whose job is to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse; fired the Ethics Officer (Hampton Dillinger) who receives whistleblower complaints; and tried to dominate every independent agency.

Our government was designed with many checks and balances to assure that no president has total control. Trump, or the people who think for him, are deliberately tearing down every such check or balance.

Currently, Trump is waging a battle to take full control of the Merit Systems Protection Board y firing one Democratic member, leaving it without a quorum and unable to function.

Government Executive reports:

The Trump administration on Tuesday asked a three-judge circuit court panel to suspend rulings from district judges that reinstated ousted Biden appointees to the Merit Systems Protection Board and National Labor Relations Board in a case that ultimately seems likely to end up in the Supreme Court.

The judges were respectively appointed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Earlier this month, the trio allowed for Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger to be removed while the court heard the Trump administration’s appeal of a similar district judge ruling that blocked Trump’s firing of the special counsel. Following that decision, Dellinger decided to drop his lawsuit.

Trump on Feb. 10 attempted to fire MSPB board member Cathy Harris, whose term expires in 2028. Harris represents one-third of the federal employee appeals board that has experienced a surge in cases as a result of the president’s mass firings and layoffs of civil servants.

A district judge on March 4 stopped the removal, agreeing that the president can only remove an MSPB member for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Harris on March 5 ordered the temporary reinstatement of thousands of Agriculture Department probationary employees who were fired by the Trump administration.

“Congress, which is the people’s representatives, have enacted a law…to say that these types of neutral arbiters have a measure of protection [from removal] because otherwise they can’t decide cases free of fear or favor,” Harris’ lawyer argued on Tuesday.

If Harris is removed, that would leave MSPB without a quorum. From 2017 to 2022, the board also lacked a quorum, which created a 3,500-case backlog that was only virtually eliminated at the end of 2024. Due to an interim final rule established that same year, MSPB can conduct some actions without a quorum.

Likewise, a district judge on March 6 reinstated Gwynne Wilcox to the NLRB. Trump in late January fired Wilcox ahead of the end of her term in 2028, leaving the agency that resolves unfair labor practices in the private sector without a quorum to hear and decide cases.

“The president has no legitimate interest in disabling this body created by Congress from performing its functions. He does have a legitimate interest in, [as] a new president elected by the people, putting his stamp on the agency,” Wilcox’s attorney said. “He does that by naming a new general counsel [and] he does that by naming the chair, which he has done. And he could do that, hasn’t done so yet, by naming people to the two vacancies. All of that would put his stamp on the agency and allow it to function in the way that he would like.”

The Trump administration, on the other hand, contended that the president should be able to remove members of the MSPB and NLRB at will.

Categories Democracy, Extremism, Fascism, Republicans, Trump

Olga Lautman: Trump’s War on Dissent

By dianeravitch

March 21, 2025 //

Olga Lautman is a fearless defender of democracy. She keeps close tabs on authoritarian regimes and has had many reasons to should the alarm since the return of Trump. Now that Trump controls the executive branch, Congress, and usually the Supreme Court (where he occasionally loses when Barrett and Roberts dissent), he is on a path to tyranny.

She warns that his crackdown on dissent is a decisive step towards full-fledged authoritarianism. Let me add as a personal that not all forms of dissent are legal, even by the most liberal definition. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. While I support student protests, there are reasonable limits defined by time, place, and manner. If students prevent others from learning by disrupting their classrooms or closing the library, that’s out of line, in my view. You are free to disagree. That’s your right, as it is mine.

Lautman writes:

Trump’s Crackdown: Silencing Dissent and Censoring the Press

While Trump floods the zone with chaos, I am watching a deeply disturbing pattern emerge. Recently, he has targeted universities under the guise of combating antisemitism, threatening to cut funding, open investigations, and deport foreign students involved in what he deems “illegal protests.” This move to silence student voices is part of a broader strategy—Trump is systematically laying the groundwork to criminalize dissent. Concurrently, he has continued to invoke emergency powers over immigration, granting himself sweeping authority with minimal oversight.

Adding to this concerning trend, Trump is weaponizing the Federal Communications Commission to suppress media freedom. Under his regime, the FCC has initiated investigations into major news organizations like NPR and PBS, scrutinizing their content and funding. The White House has also barred Associated Press reporters from covering presidential events, citing disagreements over “terminology.” Furthermore, the regime has taken control of the White House press pool, deciding which journalists can cover presidential activities, effectively beginning the process of sidelining independent media voices.

Today, the targets are “antisemitism” and “immigration.” Tomorrow, it could be any form of resistance to the regime. This pattern mirrors tactics employed by autocratic governments, where laws and regulations are manipulated to suppress opposition and control public discourse. It is imperative to recognize and challenge these encroachments on our democratic freedoms before dissent becomes a criminal act, and that is why I felt it was important to bring it to everyone’s attention.

The Playbook of Repression

Trump’s attacks on universities have nothing to do with stopping antisemitism. If they did, there would be a serious, balanced approach to addressing hate across the board. Instead, he’s selectively using it as a pretext to punish colleges, strip funding, launch investigations, and lay the groundwork for broader crackdowns on protests. These moves, along with the threat to deport foreign students who participate in protests, are a classic authoritarian tactic—silencing youth movements before they become a real threat.

In Russia, we have seen this exact strategy play out. Putin started by using the language of “public order” to justify suppressing protests. Then, he expanded it to clamp down on journalists, opposition figures, and universities. Today, any form of public dissent in Russia is met with immediate arrests, long prison sentences, or exile.

Trump is following the same playbook. First, redefine what qualifies as a legal protest. Then, frame all opposition as a national security threat. Finally, implement policies that criminalize resistance. Let’s not forget—during his first term, Trump wanted the military to shoot protesters, but guardrails stopped him. Now, with those guardrails gone and loyalists installed in key positions, he is laying the groundwork to justify an all-out assault on free speech and assembly, using the rhetoric of “law and order” to disguise repression as a “necessary” security measure.

The Danger of Emergency Powers

Trump’s continuing invocation of emergency powers on immigration is another red flag. Emergency powers are not inherently undemocratic, but in the wrong hands, they are a tool for consolidating unchecked authority. In Russia, Putin used emergencies—terrorist attacks, economic crises, and foreign threats—to justify expanding his power. Each crisis became an excuse to centralize control and dismantle any resistance to the regime.

Trump is testing the limits of emergency powers to override legal norms. He has already deployed the military on U.S. soil for immigration enforcement—what stops him from escalating further? With the Insurrection Act looming in the background, he is laying the groundwork to use military force against civilians under the pretense of a “national emergency.”

This is Just the Beginning

We are witnessing the early stages of a full-blown authoritarian shift. The selective targeting of student protesters, the abuse of emergency powers, and the push to redefine “illegal protests” are all interconnected. Today, it’s about silencing students. Tomorrow, it will be about crushing unions, blacklisting journalists, or jailing political opponents.

This is not alarmism—it’s a pattern seen time and again in authoritarian regimes. And it’s why we must sound the alarm now.

What Can We Do?

Expose and Document – Share information, track developments, and call out every attempt to silence dissent. Authoritarians thrive on people looking the other way.

Support Targeted Groups – Defend students, journalists, unions, and activists under attack. Legal funds, advocacy groups, and independent media need resources to fight back.

Pressure Lawmakers – Demand that Congress and state governments put up real resistance. Emergency powers must be challenged, and unconstitutional crackdowns must be met with legal action.

Mobilize and Protest – Peaceful mass protests and civil resistance are essential. Authoritarianism collapses when people refuse to comply.

Prepare for Escalation – The time to organize networks and alternative platforms is now and will be critical to keeping resistance alive.

The question is not whether Trump will attempt to consolidate power—it’s whether Americans will resist before it’s too late.

Categories Academic Freedom, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Students, Trump, Tyranny

Julie Vassilatos: Why Trump Wants to Kill the Education Department

By dianeravitch

March 20, 2025 //

Julie Vassilatos lives in Chicago, where she has been active as a parent in the resistance to privatization. In this post, she explains why Trump insists on closing the U.S. Department of Educatuon.

She writes:

What a difference a year makes.

One minute you’re watching your city absorb tens of thousands of new residents, asylum seekers bussed up unannounced from Texas wearing shorts and flip flops in the dead of winter, watching your city do the best they can to make room, to make a home, to help integrate these new neighbors into our city of immigrants.

Blink, and it’s the next winter. Now you see ICE snatching parents from school drop off, right in front of their kids.

It’s a whole new world. But one, at least, in which deportation chief Tom Homan is really quite far behind in his local quotas because “the people in Chicago are too educated about their rights.” Apparently this makes his work difficult.

Or take another example. A year ago we lived in a country with a Department of Education.

Blink, and that Department is in rubble on the ground, drastically defunded and illegally dismantled.

We’re not quite there yet. But we’re about to be. The right has been hollering about shutting down the Department of Education almost since its modern inception. Now they get everything they have ever wanted with Elon Musk doing the chopping in the interest of cost savings.

But even if it cost nothing, the DoE would have to be extinguished under our current regime. Because it only exists for one reason. It only has ever existed for one reason. It first came into a short-lived existence for only one reason. And that reason is really, really out of style just at the moment.

The only reason for the Department of Education is equity.

The very first time the idea of a national department of education came up was in the aftermath of the Civil War, when Congressman James A. Garfield—very much understanding the leveling capabilities of education—persuaded Congress to create a department whose sole purpose was to support public education for all Americans, particularly for new immigrants and formerly enslaved people. He thought that “improving the education of citizens was the wisest expenditure a government could make” (Goodyear, 171). And, sure enough, right off the bat, Democratic opponents of such a federal authority cranked and complained about Why do we have to support millions of lazy people who already are hogging at the government trough blah blah Why should Congress have to appropriate public funds for “illegal and improper political purposes” blah blah blah blah….ad nauseam (Goodyear, 173).

(Cue the creepy Twilight Zone music as the reader slowly realizes that we may be permanently stuck in some kind of post-Civil War time loop)

In short order, Garfield’s embattled Department was whittled down to a Bureau; educational equity for all Americans went very out of vogue in the decades post-Reconstruction.

Fast forward eighty years and the nation was still, unsurprisingly, mired in educational inequity. Segregated by race, schools for Black Americans were grossly underfunded and inadequate. 1954’s Brown v Board of Education established school desegregation, but after a painful 20 years and with public schools still not serving all Americans remotely equally, the modern Department of Education was created by Congress in 1979.

This is its first stated goal: “to strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual.”

It’s had a rocky life, with folks on the right wanting to kill it immediately upon birth, and ever since. But its goals have always remained the same: to advance educational equity in a nation sorely in need of it.

Anyway you can see why it has to die now, for so many obvious reasons. Take your pick.

Nothing that exists solely to promote equity must be allowed.

That is a bad goal.

Trump doesn’t like it.

We already have it.

The word “equity” makes white people feel bad and sad.

If someone is horning in on my equity it’s not fair.

Some people are more equity than others.

Now we have a newly minted Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, who on her first day sent out a missive concerning her department’s “final mission.” She knows little about its proper work and brings with her to the role, mainly decades of a white-dominant WWE culture that is steeped in racist tropes. Freshly confirmed, McMahon is here to burn it all down, and she is happy to.

But what is this department that’s dying, anyway? What is this beast that needs to be sacrificed? Former IL congressman Adam Kinzinger shared a good, brief explainer last week, “The Grinch Who Stole Education,” about what it does and doesn’t do. It does financially support struggling schools, administer student loans, uphold federal laws supporting disabled students, and enforce civil rights laws in public education. It does not dictate curriculum or teacher standards or exercise local control, despite what Trump says.

A much deeper dive, “Cruel to Your School,” comes from Jennifer Berkshire in The Baffler, for those interested in well-narrated, riveting history. Her conclusion is the same as Kinzinger’s—that the entire point of those who want to kill the DoE is to increase the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of children and the marginalized. Cutting this department, as well as all the others, will pay for a $4.5T tax cut for the wealthiest. “Children in need are in the crosshairs,” says Kinzinger, and the wealthy elites who stand to benefit the most are Trump, Musk, and friends. Berkshire notes that “Musk and his DOGE wrecking crew seek to deepen inequality by dismantling not just the federal Department of Education, but the institution of public education itself.” After all, in the world according to Musk, “a cognitive elite with the highest IQs deserves to rule over the rest of us, all in our natural places” in a “good and natural” hierarchy. “In this fixed economy of spoils, there is little point to an institution whose goal is ‘equalizing.’ It can’t be done.”

Peter Greene of Curmudgucation recently explained that these people hate the notion of equity so much that they have set up a tattle line for school districts. If you spot anything like equity happening at your school, you are to whisper your findings to a special website, promoted by Mom for Liberty Tiffany Justice. (I’ve written about her and her cronies….here.) So in the rubble of the former Department of Education, we will at least still have a federal mechanism to root out every last trace of equity from our public school system—as long as we have one.

In this rather horrifying moment, in this context of the violent bludgeoning of a basic and centuries-long effort to create an equitable public education system, I’m giving the last word to Eve Ewing. When those with power strip everything away, shred every value, crush every intention toward a society of justice and equity, it is not enough merely to be angry about what has been taken away. We must—we MUST—dream a good and right future. There is no other way.

“[I]t’s imperative to understand this nightmarish moment as actually being a reflection of someone else’s dream. Groups like Moms for Liberty and The Heritage Foundation have spent years bringing their most deeply held conjurations across the threshold into reality. Regardless of who prevails in the halls of power, who has more lawmakers and more funding on their side, in this one matter — the matter of imagination — we are equals. So how do we use our dreams as a map forward?

“It’s not enough to be afraid of the laws and rules we don’t want to see in schools. We have to clarify our visions of what, how, where and with whom see we want our beloveds to learn. What are we fighting for? Who are the young people you love most, and what do you dream for them? What are the values you hold dear that you want desperately for them to understand, to inherit? What are the histories, the legacies, the ancestors you need them to know? Where can you and the people you trust build collective power to make space for that teaching, for that learning?”

Beyond using your imagination in powerful ways, what are some things you can do?

There’s the ever-necessary Call Your Congressman.

Go to school board meetings. Go to PTA meetings or Local School Council meetings. Find your allies and band together. Throw in your lot with larger orgs and increase your power.

Use that above-mentioned equity tattle line in ways that seem appropriate to the moment.

Get acquainted with the work of the Journey 4 Justice Alliance and attend their upcoming national virtual town hall, “The Threats of Dismantling the USDOE on Black and Brown School Districts,” Thursday, March 20th, 7 pm EST.

Listen to the outstanding Jennifer Berkshire/Jack Schneider podcast about public education, “Have You Heard?” You’ll learn a lot and it’s painless, even entertaining, and sometimes actually hopeful.

Categories Bigotry, Chicago, Education Industry, Equity, Ethics, Extremism, Funding, Ignorance, Parents, Privatization, Trump

ALERT! Teachers College Faculty Opposes Trump Attacks on Higher Education and DEI

By dianeravitch

March 20, 2025 //

The following statement was drafted and signed by faculty at Teachers College, Columbia University.

The Trump administration is cynically using the pretext of “fighting anti-Semitism” to attack universities and control them. It has withheld $400 million from Columbia University and demanded changes to its curriculum and other policies.

This is outrageous. It is fascistic. It is an attack on academic freedom. Columbia University is a private university, one of the best in the nation. It should rebuff this repellent effort to strip it of its independence and academic freedom.

A Statement by Teachers College, Columbia University Faculty

The Attack on American Education, from our Perspective as Teachers College Faculty

March 19, 2025

We are a group of Teachers College faculty with expertise in the areas of education, health, and psychology. We write in response to the attacks by the federal government on Columbia University, and education. Teachers College is an independent institution, with its own charter, president, board of trustees, and regulations, yet we are also affiliated with Columbia University and are thus deeply affected by the current moment. We emphasize that this statement is not an official response by Teachers College, and represents only the views of its authors.

As researchers and teachers, we share with our colleagues in higher education a deep concern about the many ways that higher education is under threat at this moment. But as scholars at a graduate school of education, whose work covers the lifespan, from infants to elders, we have a distinct perspective. We see the attack on Columbia as part of a larger offensive by the Trump administration and the Republican party against education at all levels. An attack on academic freedom and the First Amendment is taking place on multiple fronts, all of which impact the basic human activity of learning in all of its forms and meanings.

Efforts to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, erase curricular content that speaks to our nation’s true and difficult past and its ongoing inequities, and intrude into the processes by which educational institutions from local school districts to universities make decisions on what and how to teach: all are connected to a desire to stifle critical thinking and prevent us from actively participating in our democracy. The intention of the Trump administration is clear. By gutting important systems of education, they can shape our thoughts and words, creating a new generation without the skills required to actively participate in our democracy and push back against oppression.

At Columbia University specifically, the Trump administration has cancelled over $400 million in research and intervention funding and is threatening further action unless the university caves to a series of demands that would radically transform the institution and undermine its fundamental role in a democracy, as our colleagues in the Columbia chapter of the AAUP detail in this letter. Such actions also violate the constitutional law and the substance and process of TItle VI, as detailed by several of our colleagues in the Columbia Law School.

The broad strategies of the administration’s attack on higher education were outlined earlier in Project 2025, but the particular tactics have been shaped by both world and local events since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and the Israeli war on Gaza that followed and continues. The accusation that Columbia is unable and unwilling to protect its Jewish students is being used to strip it of funding, especially for research in its medical school, as well as other areas of the institution. Several funded projects in education, health, and psychology at Teachers College have already been cancelled, affecting research and programs ranging from higher education access, graduate training for much-needed school psychologists, social services for students, and more.

We recognize that Columbia, like many institutions, has much ongoing work to do to ensure campus is a place that can foster and support everyone’s learning, by actively addressing antisemitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of discrimination and hatred. Yet the disproportionate response to anti-war protest on our campus must be acknowledged. We take note of the “Palestine exception,” which blocks discourse by treating Palestine and Palestinians as topics beyond First Amendment and academic freedom protections. Such a pattern has barred necessary speech and difficult dialogues on our campuses, causing division and fear amongst students, staff, and faculty members. To be sure, maintaining space for anti-war protest and other forms of political dissent within a community needs to be done with sensitivity and care, alongside respect for the rights of students to challenge one another and express ideas, including deeply controversial ones.

While this week’s education news has been dominated by Columbia, previous weeks focused on the K-12 landscape. Developments included the appointment of a Secretary of Education with no education expertise, unable even to correctly identify the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) – one of our nation’s largest pieces of federal education and civil rights legislation, which she is charged by Congress to administer. The administration laid off half of the Department of Education’s workforce. The firings have all but shuttered the more than 150 year old National Center for Education Statistics, on which countless areas of education research, including “The Nation’s Report Card” via the National Assessment of Educational Progress and studies that focus on measuring equity, rely. These are the staffpeople who ensure that Congressionally-approved funds for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (for children living in poverty), the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for disabled students, and federal financial aid to higher education make their way to their intended students, families, and communities. Major staff reductions at the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights intentionally impede this division from ensuring equitable treatment of children in our nation’s schools.

As in higher education, the Trump administration not only seeks to usurp the Congressional power of the purse but does so in the name of false and misleading representations of the state of our educational institutions. Whatever claims to the contrary, American public education is governed chiefly by state constitutions and local school districts. They decide what students learn, how teachers teach, and how student success is measured. When, for example, executive orders seek to disregard that law and tradition, we applaud leaders who, like Maine Governor Janet Mills, respond with “See you in court!”.

As experts on teaching and learning, we know that the most profound moments of learning are usually uncomfortable, as they may lead people to question taken-for-granted assumptions about themselves and the society they inhabit. The goal of good teaching is not to eliminate that discomfort, but to give it a productive use. The barrage of Executive Orders, threats to the Department of Education, and mandates such as the March 13 letter are aimed at restricting discourse and generating fear in teachers and students, especially those most vulnerable: non-US citizens, racially or ethnically minoritized populations, gender and sexually diverse and expansive people, and disabled people. Teaching and learning are much more difficult when one is afraid, and pedagogy can easily turn to rote memorization and repetition in order to avoid controversy.

While the White House accuses elementary and secondary schools as well as higher education of indoctrinating students, against the evidence, what we see is an attack on the capacity for criticism — paving the way for authoritarianism and fascism. The idea that directing criticism at the US or its geopolitical allies is un-American runs counter to much of the history of this nation. As James Baldwin once stated, “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” It is extremely hard, if not impossible, for people of any age to do the difficult work of learning, of understanding multiple perspectives on an issue, of offering counterpoints to commonly assumed views, when people are scared of losing their livelihoods and/or their visas, being arrested or deported, or being deemed enemies of the state by the highest office in the land.

As educators and researchers concerned with justice and equity, we cannot stay silent. What becomes of the University if it succumbs to the demands of a political party or leader and cedes its rights of free speech, free expression, and free inquiry? What becomes of research if its pursuit of truth is shaped by what faculty are not allowed to say, and the topics they cannot investigate? What becomes of our students if they are only permitted to think, speak, and be in ways that follow the political winds?

We call on university leaders, on our campus and beyond, to use all of the tools at their disposal, including collective efforts across the sector and litigation, to stand for academic freedom, and for First Amendment rights of free speech, inquiry, and debate, and thus to stand for our democracy.

And we pledge, as faculty members in an institution of higher education, to recognize that the challenges facing us are not unique to our institution or to higher education. They are shared challenges that at this moment link us to all those devoted to education and to learning at all stages across the life span. We celebrate the efforts such as the suit filed by the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union to stop Trump administration efforts to curtail diversity, equity, and inclusion in education. We must find ways to work with one another for our students, our communities, and our still-developing democracy.

Daniel Friedrich, PhD, Associate Professor of Curriculum, Department of Curriculum and Teaching

Ansley Erickson, PhD, Associate Professor of History and Education Policy, Department of Education Policy and Social Analysis

Melanie Brewster, PhD, Professor of Counseling Psychology, Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology

Ezekiel Dixon-Román, PhD, Professor of Critical Race, Media, and Educational Studies Director, Edmund W. Gordon Institute for Advanced Study.

Kay James, PhD, Associate Professor of Neuroscience & Education, Department of Biobehavioral Sciences

Additional signatures, added at 6pm daily.

Anonymous (11)

Jennifer Lena, PhD, Associate Professor of Arts Administration, Department of Arts and Humanities

Brandon Velez, PhD, Associate Professor of Counseling Psychology, Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology

Luis A. Huerta, PhD, Professor of Education and Public Policy; Chair, Department of Education Policy and Social Analysis

James Borland, PhD, Professor of Education, Department of Curriculum and Teaching

Nathan Holbert, PhD, Associate Professor of Communication, Media, and Learning Technologies Design

Sonali Rajan, EdD, Professor of Health Promotion and Education, Department of Health Studies and Applied Educational Psychology

Carolyn Riehl, PhD, Associate Professor of Sociology and Education Policy

Beth Rubin, PhD, Professor of Education, Department of Arts & Humanities

Lucy Calkins, PhD, Robinson Professor of Children’s Literature, Department of Curriculum & Teaching

Gita Steiner-Khamsi, PhD, William H. Kilpatrick Professor of Comparative Education, Department of International and Comparative Education

Mark Anthony Gooden, PhD, Christian Johnson Endeavor Professor of Education Leadership, Department of Organization & Leadership

Sandra Schmidt, PhD, Associate Professor of Social Studies Education, Department of Arts & Humanities

Haeny Yoon, PhD, Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education, Department of Curriculum and Teaching

Judith Scott-Clayton, PhD, Professor of Economics & Education, Department of Education Policy & Social Analysis

Alex Eble, PhD, Associate Professor of Economics & Education, Department of Education Policy & Social Analysis

Prerna Arora, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology and Education, Department of Health Studies & Applied Educational Psychology

Megan Laverty, PhD, Professor of Philosophy and Education, Department of Arts and Humanities

Ioana Literat, PhD, Associate Professor of Communication, Media and Learning Technologies Design, Department of Math, Science, and Technology

Yolanda Sealey-Ruiz, Ph.D, Professor of English Education, Department of Arts and Humanities

Categories Academic Freedom, Bigotry, Censorship, Curriculum, Democracy, Disruption, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Higher Education, Lies, Trump

Blame Musk: Why Tesla is in Big Trouble

Hundreds of Jewish Academics Protest Trump’s Claim of “Fighting Anti-Semitism” to Attack Universities

Jay Kuo Explains What Happened When a Federal Judge Slapped Down Musk and DOGE

GOP Wants to Honor Trump Right Now!

Robert Kuttner: Trump and the Politics of Cruelty

Family Members of Deported Venezuelans Say They Had No Gang Ties

Trump Fires Democratic Members of “Independent” Boards