The Christian Case for Separation of Church and State

By dianeravitch
January 31, 2025 //
11

Benjamin Cremer is a Wesleyan minister in Idaho. He posted an important commentary, making the Christian case for separation of church and state.

I believe in the separation of church and state as a Christian, not because I’m against Christianity, but because I know the history of Christianity.

It is because I have studied all about the tremendous harm that is caused whenever the church crawls into bed with the empire. The crusades, inquisitions, genocides, slavery, and subjugation of women, and persecution of people who don’t believe the way “the church” demands, all done in the name of “preserving our Christian faith.”

Whenever a government mandates Christianity, it ceases to be a matter of faith pursued by human freewill and therefore it ceases to have anything to do with Jesus and just becomes another tool to oppress people that are seen as “outsiders” by those in power.

I believe in the separation of church and state because of the teachings of Jesus. One of them being, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

So if I wouldn’t want another religious group mandating my civic life, legislating their scriptures to be read in our public schools to my children or posting the commands from their god on public spaces, then I wouldn’t want that done with my religion either to people from other religious and nonreligious backgrounds.

I believe in the separation of church and state because there are numerous Christian sects within our country alone, let alone within the entire world. Each sect has their own unique theology and interpretation of the Bible. So which Christian sect gets to dictate the kind of Christianity that is mandated?

As a Protestant, I don’t want my civic life to be mandated by Catholics, nor would Catholics want their civic life mandated by Protestants. We’ve seen the horrors of that fight already in the conflicts since the Protestant reformation.

As a Christian in the Wesleyan tradition, I don’t want my civic life mandated by Calvinist Christians or Baptists or Fundamentalists. As I am sure they wouldn’t want their civic life dictated by Wesleyan Christians either. 

Just imagine if Amish Christianity was mandated over all civic life. How would you feel about a “Christian nation” that made sure you couldn’t use your car or any modern technology? Now apply that same logic to certain Christian sects dictating public education or the decisions people can make regarding their own healthcare.

History has shown us that mandating one form of Christianity through the government leads to oppressing all outsiders, which even includes faithful Christians from other traditions as well.

That is another part of Christian history we often forget. Before the United States was founded, many fled here from a “Christian nation,” which was Britain, which was mandating one form of Christianity over everyone else. Repeating that here would be to not only ignore the reasons why many people came here in the first place, but it would just show the world that we refuse to learn from our mistakes in the past and repent from them.

As an American and a believer in the 1st Amendment, I believe everyone should be free to live according to their own beliefs and not be mandated by the government to live according to a set of beliefs from a single religious group. Including my own. Only a government that is free from religious control can guarantee religious freedom for all.

This is why I believe in the separation of church and state and I am staunchly opposed to Christian Nationalism, which is both unAmerican and unChristian. Not only does it violate religious freedom, but Jesus called us to love our neighbors as ourselves, which I believe includes not shoving our religion down their throats and dictating their life decisions by mandate of law. That is simply not loving at all. 

This is why I believe it is a bankrupt Christianity that insists on legislating its beliefs over everyone else. It is a hypocritical Christianity that demands things like everyone be subjected to Bible readings and the Ten Commandments in our public schools, yet would claim to be “persecuted” if another religion did those exact same things.

I deeply believe that when we Christians arrive at the point of needing our beliefs mandated by the government, it is because we have ultimately concluded that the truth of the message we claim to have from Jesus no longer has the power to stand on its own merit, so we need the government to do it for us instead. It declares to the world that we don’t actually believe in the power of our beliefs at all. It declares to the world that the church has failed to be the church on its own, failing to rely on the power of God, and therefore needs the government to intervene.

Far too many people in our society have witnessed a kind of Christianity that insists its particular beliefs need to be legislated over others, yet opposes legislation that would help hungry students be fed in schools, bring increased wages for people working to take care of their families, paid family leave, affordable childcare, healthcare for all, teachers being paid well, curbing gun violence, funding the education system better and supporting it rather than vilifying it and constantly attacking it, or caring for our planet, and the list goes on and on.

Is this the kind of selfish and callous reputation we want as Christians? Where we see the government as a tool only to mandate our particular beliefs instead of seeing it as an opportunity to work together towards a society where all people are free, don’t have to struggle to just have their basic needs met, and can live flourishing lives? 

Is that the kind of legacy we want to leave behind? Are we really that fearful of other beliefs stamping out the gospel of Jesus that we have to resort to government mandates and using taxpayer dollars to legislate our beliefs? Isn’t that just functioning out of fear rather than faith?

I encourage anyone who is unsure about this topic to go study church history for themselves. You can begin with the Holy Roman Empire and the Doctrine of Discovery. Or even more recently the British Empire and Christian imperialism and colonialism. We have tried having nations run by a Christian sect far too many times before and we must learn from those examples or we will repeat them. 

I encourage all Christians to consider how we might be destroying the very gospel we claim to hold so dear by wanting it mandated over others rather than living it out ourselves. Because mandating our beliefs by force of law against people’s free will is one of the most effective ways of causing people to reject the God we claim to believe in with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

I believe in the separation of church and state because it not only allows the church to be the church and the state to be the state, but it also prevents the church from giving into the temptation to worship political power and allows it to faithfully embody the gospel of Jesus, including speaking truth to the powers of this world. The church simply can’t speak truth to the power of the state when it has become one with the power of the state.

Jesus rejected Satan’s temptation to control the kingdoms of this world and I believe we as his followers should too.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” -Jesus

Now I’d like to hear from you!

Remember, you can now view this and all previous newsletters as well as invite friends to join through this link: https://benjamin-cremer.ck.page/profile.

Categories Idaho, Religion

Tennessee: Legislature Passes Universal Vouchers, State Will Pay for All Students

By dianeravitch
January 31, 2025 //
13

Governor Bill Lee was determined to get a universal voucher bill, regardless of which families get the money or what it costs the state. Since Republicans control the legislature, he got what he wanted. The plan will be phased in.

The legislature knows that most vouchers will subsidize private school tuition. They probably know that vouchers don’t raise academic achievement. They surely know that Tennessee students did well on the national test, NAEP, compared to most other states. And they know that paying the tuition of all the students who attend religious schools and private schools will be a heavy financial burden.

The only thing that is not clear is which billionaire or billionaires was behind the state Republicans’ readiness to sabotage their public schools.

None of that matters.

Marta A. Aldrich reported for Chalkbeat:

Tennessee lawmakers on Thursday approved Gov. Bill Lee’s universal private school voucher bill, creating a new track for educating K-12 students statewide.

The 54-44 vote in the House, where Democrats and some rural Republicans joined to oppose the program, came after four hours of debate, including dozens of failed attempts to add amendments aimed at strengthening accountability and protections for students with disabilities, among other things.

The Senate later voted 20-13 to pass Lee’s Education Freedom Act.

The Republican governor called the bill’s passage “a milestone in advancing education in Tennessee.” He is expected to quickly sign his signature education bill.

“I’ve long believed we can have the best public schools & give parents a choice in their child’s education, regardless of income or zip code,” he said on social media.

Tennessee joins a dozen states that have adopted similar programs allowing families, regardless of their income, to use public tax dollars to pay for alternatives to public education for their children.

President Donald Trump this week signed an executive order that frees up federal funding and prioritizes spending on school choice programs.

Lee’s office did not immediately respond when asked if the federal order has implications, financial or otherwise, on Tennessee’s Education Freedom Act.

Also this week, results of a major national test show that Tennessee students held their ground in math and reading, in a year when average student test scores declined nationwide.

The new voucher program is scheduled to launch in the upcoming school year with 20,000 “scholarships” of $7,075 each to aid families toward the cost of a private education. Half of them will be for students whose family income is below a certain threshold — $173,000 for a family of four. Those income restrictions will be lifted during the program’s second year. The number of available vouchers can grow by 5,000 each year thereafter.

About 65% of the vouchers are expected to be awarded to students who already attend private schools, with 35% going to students switching out of public schools, according to the legislature’s own analysis of the proposal….

The packages will cost almost $1 billion this year in a state that has seen its revenues drop because of tax breaks for corporations and businesses enacted in 2024 under another initiative from the governor.

The Education Freedom Act itself will cost taxpayers at least $1.1 billion during its first five years, state analysts say, under a provision that allows the program to grow by 5,000 students annually.

In addition to providing some families with vouchers, the legislation will give one-time bonuses of $2,000 each to the state’s public school teachers; establish a public school infrastructure fund using tax revenues from the sports betting industry that currently contribute to college scholarships; and reimburse public school systems for any state funding lost if a student dis-enrolls to accept the new voucher.

Categories Disruption, Ethics, Funding, Religion, Separation of church and state, Tennessee, Vouchers

Why Paul Krugman Left The New York Times

By dianeravitch
January 30, 2025 //
29

Paul Krugman is a Nobel-Prize winning economist who wrote a regular column for The New York Times for 24 years. Recently he left the Times and now writes at Substack.

On Substack, he wrote about why he left. For many years, he wrote, the Times had edited his work very lightly. Recently, his editors had been heavy-handed.

Krugman wrote::

During my first 24 years at the Times, from 2000 to 2024, I faced very few editorial constraints on how and what I wrote. For most of that period my draft would go straight to a copy editor, who would sometimes suggest that I make some changes — for example, softening an assertion that arguably went beyond provable facts, or redrafting a passage the editor didn’t quite understand, and which readers probably wouldn’t either. But the editing was very light; over the years several copy editors jokingly complained that I wasn’t giving them anything to do, because I came in at length, with clean writing and with back-up for all factual assertions.


This light-touch editing prevailed even when I took positions that made Times leadership very nervous. My early and repeated criticisms of Bush’s push to invade Iraq led to several tense meetings with management. In those meetings, I was urged to tone it down. Yet the columns themselves were published as I wrote them. And in the end, I believe the Times — which eventually apologized for its role in promoting the war — was glad that I had taken an anti-invasion stand. I believe that it was my finest hour.


So I was dismayed to find out this past year, when the current Times editors and I began to discuss our differences, that current management and top editors appear to have been completely unaware of this important bit of the paper’s history and my role in it.


Two, previous Times management and editors had allowed me to engage in the higher-level economic debates of the time. The aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis led to a great flowering of economics blogs. Important, sophisticated debates about the causes of the crisis and the policy response were taking place more or less in real time. I was able to be an active part of those debates, because I had an economics blog of my own, under the Times umbrella but separate from the column. The blog, unedited, was both more technical — sometimes much more technical — and looser than the column.
Then, step by step, all the things that made writing at the Times worthwhile for me were taken away. The Times eliminated the blog at the end of 2017. Here’s my last substantive blog post, which gives a good idea of the kind of thing I was no longer able to do once it was eliminated.
For a while I tried to make up for the loss of the blog with threads on Twitter. But even before Elon Musk Nazified the site, tweet threads were an awkward, inferior substitute for blog posts. So in 2021 I opened a Substack account, as a place to put technical material I couldn’t publish in the Times. Times management became very upset. When I explained to them that I really, really needed an outlet where I could publish more analytical writing with charts etc., they agreed to allow me to have a Times newsletter (twice a week), where I could publish the kind of work I had previously posted on my blog.


In September 2024 my newsletter was suddenly suspended by the Times. The only reason I was given was “a problem of cadence”: according to the Times, I was writing too often. I don’t know why this was considered a problem, since my newsletter was never intended to be published as part of the regular paper. Moreover, it had proved to be popular with a number of readers.

Also in 2024, the editing of my regular columns went from light touch to extremely intrusive. I went from one level of editing to three, with an immediate editor and his superior both weighing in on the column, and sometimes doing substantial rewrites before it went to copy. These rewrites almost invariably involved toning down, introducing unnecessary qualifiers, and, as I saw it, false equivalence. I would rewrite the rewrites to restore the essence of my original argument. But as I told Charles Kaiser, I began to feel that I was putting more effort—especially emotional energy—into fixing editorial damage than I was into writing the original articles. And the end result of the back and forth often felt flat and colorless.


One more thing: I faced attempts from others to dictate what I could (and could not) write about, usually in the form, “You’ve already written about that,” as if it never takes more than one column to effectively cover a subject. If that had been the rule during my earlier tenure, I never would have been able to press the case for Obamacare, or against Social Security privatization, and—most alarmingly—against the Iraq invasion. Moreover, all Times opinion writers were banned from engaging in any kind of media criticism. Hardly the kind of rule that would allow an opinion writer to state, “we are being lied into war.”

The story is told in the Columbia Journalism Review, though not in the same detail, by Charles Kaiser. It is not behind a paywall.

Kaiser wrote (in part):

CJR emailed half a dozen Times columnists to ask if they had noticed any difference in the way their columns were edited last year. The three who responded—Maureen Dowd, Gail Collins, and Tom Friedman—all said they hadn’t noticed any change in editing. Friedman also said, “I have a terrific editor in Patrick Healy and have not experienced any change in the editing of my column since we started working together in 2020.”

Krugman said, “I don’t have a feud here. All I know is that I was in fact being treated very differently from the past.”

Krugman was particularly valuable to progressive readers because he was often a lone voice in the wilderness. That was especially true early in his columnist career when he strayed from his brief—to write about economics—in order to strenuously oppose the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. This was striking at a time when the news department allowed Judith Miller to lead the charge on the unproven allegation that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and most of Krugman’s colleagues—especially Friedman—were strongly in favor of the invasion.

Just six days before America invaded, Krugman wrote, “The original reasons given for making Iraq an immediate priority have collapsed. No evidence has ever surfaced of the supposed link with Al Qaeda, or of an active nuclear program. And the administration’s eagerness to believe that an Iraqi nuclear program does exist has led to a series of embarrassing debacles, capped by the case of the forged Niger papers, which supposedly supported that claim. At this point it is clear that deposing Saddam has become an obsession, detached from any real rationale.”

He served a similar function during the Biden administration, when the media in general and the White House correspondents of the Times in particular exhibited what Krugman called “a real negativity bias. You know, if the price of gas goes up to five dollars, that’s all over the pages. If it comes back down to three dollars, not a peep, right?”

Unlike most of his Times colleagues, Krugman believes Biden “actually was a very, very good president. The fact that Democrats, like every other incumbent party in the democratic world, lost the election should not allow us to overlook the fact that we got the best economic recovery in the world, that we made the first serious efforts to do something about climate change, and we have followed, actually, a quite aggressive foreign economic policy against China that was much more effective than anything Trump did or is likely to do. The Biden administration has basically been trying to cut Chinese advanced technology off at the knees.”

Times watchers are always wary of any sign that the newspaper might be doing anything to bow to its legions of right-wing critics. This is especially true when, as Oliver Darcy put it this week, “Trump has largely bent media and technology companies to his will.”

Kingsbury said it was ridiculous to suggest that the paper made Krugman’s life miserable last year because she wanted to stifle one of the newspaper’s strongest liberal voices on the eve of Trump’s return to the White House. 

“Obviously I do push back on the notion that Paul’s views are now missing from the page,” the opinion editor said. “You can come to our pages today and find either other columnists making the arguments he was making or guest essays, or newsletters, or podcasts,” she continued. “For nine months we pounded away at the idea of Trump coming back into office. We were the only major newspaper that endorsed in the presidential race and endorsed Kamala Harris. There’s no part of my report that didn’t routinely tell readers about the dangers and risks of electing Trump.”

All of that is true. But it is also the case that the greatest change that Kingsbury and Sulzberger have made has been the sharp shrinking of the institutional voice of the Times. The number of unsigned editorials has gone from three a day, when Kingsbury took over, to just one a week—even as she has increased the number of columnists by roughly 50 percent. The paper’s editorial voice should be reserved “for the most important arguments,” she said. “We break through more than we did when we editorialized on a daily basis.”

Many New Yorkers were distressed when the paper announced last fall that it would stop making endorsements in local races. More alarm bells went off last week when Semafor reported that the paper was considering abandoning all endorsements. Kingsbury told Semafor there was no plan to eliminate the editorial board, but she did not flatly deny the no-endorsement scenario. “We’re in the process of considering ways to modernize endorsements,” she said, “and while we’re excited about the ideas we’re discussing, there’s nothing substantive to say about it yet.”

Categories Accountability, Economics, Media

Trump Signs Executive Order Threatening to Punish Schools that Teach About Racism and Gender

By dianeravitch
January 30, 2025 //
15

Trump signed an Executive Order threatening to cut off federal funding from schools that “indoctrinate” students on issues related to race and gender. The order is titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.”

Let’s start by acknowledging that this order is in direct violation of a law that was passed in 1970 to prevent the federal government from imposing any curriculum on the nation’s schools. This provision has been repeatedly renewed. Neither party wanted the other to impose its views on the schools, which is what Trump seeks to do.

The law says:

“No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, [or] administration…of any educational institution…or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials.” P.L. 103-33, General Education Provisions Act, Section 432.

What Trump ordered is illegal.

Trump is expressing the views of far-right extremist groups, like “Moms for Liberty,” who hate public schools for teaching honest accurate history about racism. They want teachers to say that there was racism long, long ago, but not any more. They vehemently oppose any discussion of systemic racism (they call such discussion “critical race theory,” which of course must never be mentioned).

Any discussion of the reality of racism is forbidden by this order.

Even more threatening to the extremists is what they call “radical gender ideology.” That would be any discussion that acknowledges that LGBT+ people exist. They believe that just talking about the existence of such people–widespread on television, movies, and the Internet–makes children turn gay or even transgender.

Trump’s executive order threatens to withhold federal funding from any school where yea gets “indoctrinate” their students to consider the existence of systemic racism or sexuality.

It is Trump’s hope that with the actions he take, non- binary people–that is, LGTB+–will cease to exist.

Trump’s friend Elon Musk posted yesterday a graphic showing that in the distant past, there were two genders; in the recent past there were “73 genders.” Starting in 2025, his post said, there will be only two genders. Musk is the father of a transgender daughter, who was originally named Xavier. With his gleeful tweet, he seems to be trying to erase his daughter.

Categories Academic Freedom, Accountability, Bigotry, Censorship, Civics, Civil Rights, Curriculum, Democracy, Disruption, Extremism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Gender, History, Lies, Race, Racism, Republicans, Trump

Trump Signs Executive Order Directing Federal Funds to School Choice, Directly Attacking Public Schools

By dianeravitch
January 30, 2025 //
25

Trump has always expressed contempt for public schools. In his first term, he appointed billionaire religious zealot Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education. She has spent many millions over decades to promote charters and vouchers, and she shoveled as much money as she could to charter schools, especially large chains.

His nominee for Secretary of Education, wrestling-entertainment entrepreneur Linda McMahon, will be no less spiteful towards public schools than DeVos. McMahon is chair of the extremist America First Policy Institute, which peddles the lie that public schools “indoctrinate” their students to hate America.

In his 2024 campaign, Trump pushed school choice as one of his major issues.

Yesterday he signed an executive order directing that discretionary federal funds be spent to promote all forms of choice, and he praised states with universal vouchers.

His executive order lambastes the “failure” of the public schools, a refrain we have heard from privatizers for the past 30 years, and he makes false claims about the benefits of private choices.

He says:

When our public education system fails such a large segment of society, it hinders our national competitiveness and devastates families and communities.  For this reason, more than a dozen States have enacted universal K-12 scholarship programs, allowing families — rather than the government — to choose the best educational setting for their children.  These States have highlighted the most promising avenue for education reform:  educational choice for families and competition for residentially assigned, government-run public schools.  The growing body of rigorous research demonstrates that well-designed education-freedom programs improve student achievement and cause nearby public schools to improve their performance. 

This paragraph is larded with lies. Despite decades of loud complaining about how public schools hurt our economic competitiveness, we have the most vibrant and successful economy in the world. Our public schools, which enroll 85-90% of our nation’s students, contributed to that success.

Next is his patently false claim that universal choice is the best path to educational success. There is no evidence for that claim. In fact, Florida–a leader in universal choice–just experienced a sharp drop in its NAEP scores. Its reading and math scores dropped to their lowest level in more than 20 years.

And most ridiculous is his assertion that “rigorous research demonstrates that well-designed education-freedom programs improve student achievement and cause nearby public schools to improve their performance.”

Josh Cowen’s new book The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers thoroughly debunks those claims.

The most rigorous research, which Cowen reviews, shows that poor kids who take vouchers and switch to a private school experience a dramatic decline in their test scores. Many return to public schools.

The most rigorous research shows that most students who use vouchers were already enrolled in private schools. The voucher is a subsidy for their religious and private school tuition.

The most rigorous research shows that universal vouchers in every state that has them are used by affluent families. They are welfare for the rich.

The most rigorous research shows that public schools lose funding when new and existing state funding goes to nonpublic schools.

The most rigorous research shows that universal choice busts the budgets of states that fund all students, including private school students.

Trump has sharpened his knife to destroy public education.

Fight back!

Join the Network for Public Education and link up with people in your community, your state, and the nation who believe that public dollars should be spent on public schools.

Sign up for the annual conference of the Network for Public Education in Columbus, Ohio, April 5-6 and meet your allies.

Organize, strategize, resist!

Categories Betsy DeVos, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Disruption, Education Industry, Extremism, Failure, Funding, Home Schooling, Privatization, School Choice, Trump, Vouchers

Jim Acosta Signs Off at CNN

By dianeravitch
January 29, 2025 //
7

CNN doesn’t want to make Trump angry.

Trump doesn’t like Jim Acosta.

CNN moved him to a late-night slot, where fewer viewers would see him.

Jim Acosta resigned. He is now on Substack.

This was his final message on CNN:

I just wanted to end today’s show by thanking all of the wonderful people who work behind the scenes at this network.
You may have seen some reports about me and the show, and after giving all of this some careful consideration and weighing in alternative timeslots CNN offered me, I’ve decided to move on. I am grateful to CNN for the nearly 18 years I’ve spent here doing the news.
People often ask me if the highlight of my career at CNN was at the White House covering Donald Trump.
Actually, no. That moment came here when I covered former President Barack Obama’s trip to Cuba in 2016 and had the chance to question the dictator there, Raul Castro, about the island’s political prisoners.
As the son of a Cuban refugee, I took home this lesson: It is never a good time to bow down to a tyrant.
I have always believed it’s the job of the press to hold power to account. I’ve always tried to do that here at CNN, and I plan on doing all of that in the future.
One final message. Don’t give in to the lies. Don’t give in to the fear. Hold on to the truth and to hope.
Even if you have to get out your phone, record that message. I will not give in to the lies. “I will not give in to the fear!”
Post it on your social media so people can hear from you, too.
I’ll have more to say about my plans in the coming days. But until then, I want to thank all of you for tuning in. It has been an honor to be welcomed into your home for all these years.
That’s the news. Reporting from Washington. I’m Jim Acosta.

Categories Censorship, Courage, Democracy, Ethics, Fascism, Freedom of the Press, Media, Trump

TIME: RFK Jr. on Vaccines

By dianeravitch
January 29, 2025 //
22

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the most famous vaccine skeptics in the U.S., tried to distance himself from his decades of anti-vaccine sentiment during his Jan. 29 hearing to be confirmed as secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If confirmed, Kennedy would oversee agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health.

“News reports have claimed that I am anti-vaccine or anti-industry. I am neither. I am pro-safety,” Kennedy said in his opening statement before the Senate Committee on Finance, prompting a protester to shout, “He lies!” Kennedy added that all of his children are vaccinated—a decision he has previously said he regrets—and said vaccines “play a critical role in health care.”

Some Republican senators accepted Kennedy’s pro-vaccine comments at the hearing. But many senators—including Oregon’s Ron Wyden, a Democrat—pressed Kennedy on discrepancies between his past public statements—in which he has repeatedly questioned the safety and necessity of vaccines and said they are linked to autism and chronic diseases—and his sanitized comments during the hearing. “Mr. Kennedy, all of these

Categories Ethics, Extremism, Health, Lies, Science

Trump Administration Rescinds Funding Freeze

By dianeravitch
January 29, 2025 //
14

A maxim: Where Trump goes, chaos reigns.

The across-the-board federal funding freeze imposed by the Trump administration was withdrawn, according to this report at MSNBC.

The freeze was announced, then modified, and today it was withdrawn. It caused widespread chaos, as numerous programs were confused about whether or not they had funding. Red states, where federal funding is concentrated, were hit hardest.

The New York Times added details:

Grant freeze: The White House rescinded an order on Wednesday that froze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans and sparked mass confusion across the country, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter. A federal judge had temporarily blocked it on Tuesday…

The initial directive interrupted the Medicaid system that provides health care to millions of low-income Americans and sent schools, hospitals, nonprofits, research companies and law enforcement agencies scrambling to understand if they had lost their financial support from the federal government.

A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Tuesday afternoon temporarily blocked the order in response to a lawsuit filed by Democracy Forward, a liberal organization that argued that the directive violated the First Amendment and a law governing how executive orders are to be rolled out.

On Wednesday, Matthew J. Vaeth, the acting director for the Office of Management and Budget, sent a notification to federal agencies notifying them that memo freezing aid had been “rescinded.”

“If you have questions about implementing the President’s executive orders, please contact your agency general counsel,” Mr. Vaeth said in the notification.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Extremism, Funding, Stupid, Trump

Trump Appoints Vocal Critic of DEI to Lead Civil Rights Commission

By dianeravitch
January 29, 2025 //
9

Trump appointed Andrea Lucas, an outspoken critic of policies that acknowledge race or gender, to be chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC traditionally advocates for race-based and gender-based policies to monitor whether employers are trying to give all groups an equal chance. Lucas opposes the EEOC’s actions.

If the EEOC receives a complaint about racism in a workplace, it would collect data about the workforce. Its recommendations would be based on that data.

Lucas believes that hiring decisions must “colorblind,” so if the workforce is 100% white, there’s no problem.

Lucas opposes any enforcement that takes race or gender into account. She is also strenuously opposed to acknowledging that transgender people exist. She may think the same of gay people.

Lucas spoke at a Federalist Society meeting, where she made her views on gender clear:

“It’s important to say that biological sex is real and it matters, and it’s immutable and it’s binary. And from that premise we have, that’s the foundation on which we then proceed to have the various civil rights laws that have been enacted for the last 60 years.”

In short, don’t expect her to have any sympathy for discrimination against LGBT people.

There are five members on the EEOC, and she is the only Republican. Trump appointed her in 2020. There is a vacancy. Even with a 3-2 majority of Democrats, don’t expect much civil rights enforcement for the next four years.

Categories Bigotry, Equity, Ethics, Gender, Inequity, Race, Racism, Trump

Heather Cox Richardson: The Facts About Our Blow-Up with Colombia

By dianeravitch
January 29, 2025 //
8

Yesterday, President Donald Trump began a trade war with Colombia after that country’s president refused to permit two U.S. military airplanes full of deportees to land in Colombia. As Regina Garcia Cano and Astrid Suárez of the Associated Press pointed out, Colombia and the U.S. had an existing agreement for deportations under former president Joe Biden, and it accepted 475 deportation flights from 2020 to 2024, accepting 124 flights in 2024 alone. But the Biden administration used commercial and charter flights, while as national security analyst Juliette Kayyem noted, Trump used a military plane that arrived unannounced.

As Tim Naftali of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs explained: “If a foreign country tries to land its military planes—except in an emergency—without an existing agreement that is an infringement of sovereignty.” Colombia rejected the military planes without prior authorization and offered the use of its presidential plane instead.

Colombia also asked the U.S. to provide notice and decent treatment for its people, an issue that had been raised and resolved in 2023 after migrants arrived in hand and foot cuffs. Colombian president Gustavo Petro noted that the U.S. had committed that it would guarantee dignified conditions for the repatriation of migrants. The plane of migrants landed in Honduras, where Columbia sent its presidential plane to pick them up.

Trump announced that Colombia’s “denial of these flights has jeopardized the National Security and Public Safety of the United States,” and slapped a 25% tariff on products from Colombia, which include about $6 billion of crude petroleum, $1.8 billion of coffee, and $1.6 billion of cut flowers. In addition, he said, the U.S. would revoke the visas of all Colombian “Government Officials, and all Allies and Supporters.” He promptly deported Colombian staff members of the World Bank who were working for international diplomatic organizations in the U.S., and canceled visa appointments at Colombia’s U.S. Embassy.

Rather than backing down, President Petro threatened to levy a retaliatory tariff on U.S. products. Colombia imports 96.7% of the corn it feeds its livestock from the U.S., putting Colombia in the top five export markets for U.S. corn. According to a letter written by a bipartisan group of lawmakers eager to protect that trade, led by Senator Todd Young (R-IN), in 2003 the U.S. exported more than 4 million metric tons of corn to Colombia, which translated to $1.14 billion in sales. “American farmers cannot afford to lose such a vital export market,” the lawmakers wrote, “especially when access to the top U.S. corn export market, Mexico, is already at risk.”

By this morning the economic crisis appeared to be over, although U.S. visa restrictions apparently remain. With prior authorization and better treatment of migrants, Colombia is willing to accept the migrant flights. The White House declared victory, saying: “Today’s events make clear to the world that America is respected again. President Trump will continue to fiercely protect our nation’s sovereignty, and he expects all other nations of the world to fully cooperate in accepting the deportation of their citizens illegally present in the United States.”

The administration’s handling of the situation with Colombia reveals that their power depends on convincing people to ignore reality and instead to believe in the fantasy world Trump dictates.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced yesterday morning that “[d]eportation flights have begun.” In fact, nothing is “beginning.” In 2024, Colombia accepted on average more than two U.S. flights of migrants a week. And, as immigration scholar Austin Kocher noted, “everyone on this deportation flight was arrested and detained by the Biden administration.”

Over the past four years, Trump and MAGA Republicans repeatedly insisted that Biden had maintained “open borders,” while in fact, what the administration did was to try to address a situation made worse by the coronavirus pandemic.

As Katie Tobin of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace explains, before the coronavirus pandemic, Venezuela, where the economy was particularly bad under rising authoritarian Nicolás Maduro, sent migrants abroad. By June 2022, 6 million Venezuelans had fled their country; by September 2024, that number was 7.7 million. South American governments welcomed the Venezuelan migrants and others, including Haitians fleeing their country’s political chaos.

But as economies collapsed after the coronavirus crisis, Tobin explains, migrant populations that had settled in South American countries were forced out. From 2019 to 2021, Colombia’s per capita gross domestic product fell 4.6%; Peru’s, 5.3%; Ecuador’s, 2.8%; Brazil’s, 11.7%; and Venezuela’s, 20%. As the U.S. economy grew by 8.38%, Canada’s grew by 13.1%, and Mexico’s dropped only by 0.7%, migrants headed north. In September 2021, when 15,000 Haitians who had originally migrated to Brazil arrived at the U.S. border with Mexico, countries throughout the hemisphere realized that they needed a new regional approach to migration.

After nine months of negotiations, 21 countries announced that they had created a new migration pact for the Western Hemisphere. It provided economic support for Latin American countries that were original destinations for migrants, expanded formal pathways for immigration, and increased border security across the region.

Canada and Mexico were the first countries to buy into the new agreement. The U.S. turned next to strong ally Colombia, which agreed in March 2022, after which Vice President Kamala Harris brought on board Caribbean countries. By June 10, when the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection was announced, twenty-one nations had signed on. U.N. observers were present to demonstrate their support.

The Biden administration insisted that countries begin immediate action, and they did. Tobin notes that Belize, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Peru have made sweeping new offers of legal status to hundreds of thousands of migrants already living in their countries, while Colombia has offered legal status to 2 million Venezuelans and Brazil has welcomed more than 500,000. Mexico and Guatemala have offered legal pathways to workers.

Canada, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Spain, and the U.S. launched a virtual platform to enable migrants to apply for admission remotely. When Mexico agreed to accept Venezuelans who had crossed into the U.S. unlawfully and at the same time the U.S. announced a legal pathway for 24,000 Venezuelans, border crossings dropped 90% within a week. Biden and Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador expanded that initiative to include Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans.

By 2023, border arrests had fallen by about half. Although Congress failed to pass a strong bipartisan measure to increase border security and fund immigration courts, arrests fell by half again after Biden in June 2024 issued a proclamation that barred migrants from being granted asylum when U.S. officials deemed the border was overwhelmed. By the end of Biden’s term, unlawful border crossings had plummeted to lows that hadn’t been seen since June 2020.

There are new challenges to managing migration as wars, climate change, and economic pressures push migrants out of various parts of Africa and out of China. Many of those migrants are finding their way to Latin America and from there to the U.S. The U.N. Refugee Agency estimates that 117 million people were displaced by the end of 2023.

Trump won election in part by vowing to shut down immigration, and as soon as he took office he canceled the CBP One app, the virtual platform that allowed migrants to apply for asylum. During the campaign, he vowed to deport those migrants he claimed were criminals, which many interpreted to mean he would only remove those who had committed violent crimes (which the U.S. has always done). But in his first term, Trump’s people considered anyone who entered the U.S. outside of immigration law to be a criminal, and this appears to be the definition his people are using now.

Daily deportation raids in which U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested a few hundred people in sweeps began almost as soon as Trump took office. Josh Campbell, Andy Rose, and Nick Valencia of CNN reported that the federal government has flooded the media with video and photos of agents in tactical gear, their vests bearing the words “Police ICE” and “Homeland Security” as they lead individuals in handcuffs. The journalists report that this is not an accident: agents were told to have their agency names clearly displayed for the press.

The presence of television talk show host Dr. Phil (McGraw) with an ICE team in Chicago reinforces the sense that these arrests are designed for the cameras. So does yesterday’s report by Nick Miroff and Maria Sacchetti of the Washington Post that Trump is disappointed with the sweeps so far and has directed officials to ramp up arrests aggressively, providing quotas for ICE field offices. Today, new secretary of defense Pete Hegseth said the department will “shift” to “the defense of the territorial integrity of the United States of America at the southern border.”

Yesterday’s spat with Colombia’s president enabled Trump to declare victory, but Colombia has been the top U.S. ally in Latin America, a close partner in combating drug trafficking and managing migration. That relationship, which has taken years of careful cultivation, is now threatened.

Will Freeman of the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy, posted: “I can’t think of many *worse* strategic blunders for the U.S., as it competes w/ China, than going nuclear against its oldest strategic ally & last big country in S. America where it enjoys a trade advantage…. Trump certainly expects that b[ecause] 1/3 of Colombian exports go to the U.S. Petro will be forced to back down. But Petro seems to welcome the fight & has already signaled wishes to deepen ties w/ China. Colombia will lose partnership on security it badly needs. Only China stands to gain from this.”

Indeed, China’s ambassador to Colombia promptly noted that “we are at the best moment of our diplomatic relations between China and Colombia, which are now 45 years old.”

Meanwhile, according to former ambassador Luis G. Moreno, the Trump administration has shut down 2,100 courses in the premier training facility for State Department foreign service officers, ostensibly because they are too associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion. Moreno adds: “Dismantling of a professional diplomatic corps is underway.”

Categories Economy, Ethics, Extremism, Immigration
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »