This is good news. The misuse of AI threatens the integrity of our elections and our ability to trust anything that is communicated to us other than in person. Justice was served!

The man responsible for a political robocalling hoax aimed at New Hampshire voters has been fined $6 million by the Federal Communications Commission.

Steve Kramer, the New Orleans-based political consultant who has admitted his involvement in the hoax, must pay the fine for violating the federal Truth in Caller ID Act, which makes it illegal to make automated telephone calls with intent to defraud or cause harm. The FCC says that it will hand the matter to the US Justice Department if Kramer doesn’t pay up in 30 days.

The hoax occurred in January, when New Hampshire voters received robocalls in the runup to the state’s primary elections. The calls, which featured a computer-generated voice that mimicked the voice of President Joe Biden, urged voters not to cast ballots in the primary.

Kramer hired New Orleans magician Paul Carpenter to create the recording with help from ElevenLabs, a company that uses artificial intelligence to generate highly realistic simulations of individuals’ voices. Carpenter has said that he didn’t know Kramer’s plans for the AI recording. Kramer has claimed that he did it to demonstrate the dangers posed by computer-generated “deepfakes.”

Lingo Telecom, the Missouri phone company that sent out the robocalls, agreed to pay a $1 million fine last month for its involvement in the hoax.

In addition to the FCC fine, Kramer faces 13 felony counts of attempted voter suppression in the New Hampshire courts, as well as 13 misdemeanor counts of impersonating a candidate.

Timothy Snyder, history professor at Yale University, expresses his alarm about Trump’s turn toward fascistic rhetoric in this post. Trump knows how to excite his base by repeating conspiracy theories and blaming the Jews if anything he wants goes wrong. Snyder does not invoke the reference to Hitler lightly. He knows European history.

He writes:

Trump just had quite a Hitlerian month.

But before broaching the subject of Trump and Hitler I have to say a with a word about the American taboo on “comparisons.” 

Anyone who refers to Trump’s Hitlerian moments will be condemned for “comparison.”  Somehow that “comparison” rather than Trump’s deeds becomes the problem.  The outrage one feels about the crimes of the 1930s and 1940s is transferred from the person who resembles the criminal to the person who points out the resemblance.  

This cynical position opposing “comparisons” exploits the emotional logic of exceptionalism.  Americans are innocent and good (we would like to believe).  We are not (we take for granted) like the Germans between the world wars.  We would never (we imagine) tolerate the stereotypes German Nazis invoked.  We have learned the lessons of the Holocaust. 

Since we are so innocent and good, since we know everything, it just cannot be true — so runs the emotional logic — that a leading American politician does Hitlerian things.  And since we are so pure and wise, we never have to specify what it was that we have learned from the past.  Indeed, our our goodness is so profound that we must express it by attacking the people who recall history. 

And so, in the name of our capacity to remember great evil, we make it impossible to actually remember great evil.  A taboo on “comparison” becomes a shield for the perpetrator.  Those who invoke the past are the true villains, the real source of the problem, or, as Trump says about journalists, the “enemy of the people.”  Indeed, the more Trump resembles Hitler, the safer the man is from criticism on this point.

I hope that the irony of all of this is clear: the idea that “comparison” is a sin rests on the notion of the inherent and unimpeachable virtue of the American Volk, who by definition do nothing wrong, and whose chosen Leader therefore must be beyond criticism.  In this strange way, outrage about “comparison” reinforces fascist ideas about purity and politics.  We should hate the dissenters.  We should ignore whatever casts doubt on our sense of national virtue.  We should never reflect.

Democracy, of course, depends on the ability to reflect, and that reflection is impossible without a sense of the past.  The past is our only mirror, which is why fascists want to shatter it.  In fascist Russia, for example, it is a criminal offense to say the wrong things about the Second World War.  The reason why we keep alive the memory of Nazi crimes is not because it could never happen here, but because something similar can always happen anywhere.  That memory has to include the details of history, or else we will not recognize the dangers. 

“Never again” is something that you work for, not something that you inherit.

Before we think about this past month, we also have to consider the past four years.  This entire election unfolds amidst a big lie.  It was Hitler’s advice to tell a lie so big that your followers would never believe that you would deceive them on such a scale.  Trump followed that advice in November 2020.  His claim that we actually won the election in a landslide is a fantasy that opens the way to other fantasies.  It is a conspiratorial claim that opens the way to conspiratorial thinking generally.  It prepares his followers for the idea that other Americans are enemies and that violence might be needed to install the correct leader.

This year we have seen that explicit Nazi ideas are tolerated in the Trump milieu.  The vice-presidential candidate shares a platform with Holocaust deniers, and defends Holocaust denial as free speech.  This is a fallacy people should see through: yes, the First Amendment allows Nazis to speak, but it does not ennoble Nazi speech.  The fact that people say fascist things in a country with freedom of speech is how we know that they are fascists — and that, if they themselves comes to power, they will end freedom of speech and all other freedoms.

Which brings us to North Carolina and to the gubernatorial candidate Trump once called the country’s hottest politician.  No one is denying that Mark Robinson has the right under the First Amendment to call himself a Nazi or to praise Mein Kampf.  The question is what we do about this.  Trump will not intervene here because he believes that Robinson is more likely to win than a substitute candidate would be.  Consider that for a moment: for Trump, the reason not to distance himself a self-avowed Nazi is that he hopes that the self-avowed Nazi will win an election, take office, and hold power. 

This is not surprising.  Trump and Vance are running a fascist campaign.  Its main theme in September was inspired by a lady in Springfield, Ohio, who lost her cat and then found it again.  For J.D. Vance, who knew what happened, this became the basis for the lie that Haitian immigrants were eating domestic animals.  For Donald Trump, that became a reason to promise that Haitians in Springfield would be deported.  He had found people who were both Blacks and immigrants, who could serve as the “them” in his politics of us-and-them.

It is fascist to start a political campaign from the choice of an enemy (this is the definition of politics by the most talented Nazi thinker, Carl Schmitt).  It is fascist to replace reason with emotion, to tell big lies (“create stories,” as Vance says) that appeal to a sense of vulnerability and exploit a feeling of difference.  The fantasy of barbarians in our cities violating basic social norms serves to gird the Trump-Vance story that legal, constitutional government is helpless and that only an angry mob backed by a new regime could get things done. 

It is worth knowing, in this connection, that the first major action of Hitler’s SS was the forced deportation of migrants.  About 17,000 people were deported, which generated the social instability that the Nazi government the used as justification for further oppression.  Trump and Vance plan to deport about a thousand times as many people….

In international politics, the key moment concerns Ukraine and its head of state.  Since February 2022, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelens’kyi, has been rightly understood and admired as a symbol of physical and political courage.  When Russia began its full-scale invasion that month, the American consensus was the Ukraine would crack within days and that Zelens’kyi would (and should) flee.  Instead, he stayed in Kyiv despite the approach of Russian assassins and the Russian army, rallied his people, and oversaw the successful defense of his country.  He has since visited the front every few weeks. 

This is how Trump characterized Zelens’kyi in September, echoing comments that he has made before: “Every time he came to our country, he’d walk away with $100 billion. He’s probably the greatest salesman on Earth.”  Trump seems threatened by Zelens’kyi.  As Trump has made clear numerous times, his first and only impulse is to give Putin what Putin wants.  The idea of taking risks to defend freedom from the Russian dictator is well beyond the pinprick-sized black hole that is Trump’s moral universe. 

And of course the claim itself is false.  The number is too big.  And the money does not go to Zelens’kyi himself, obviously.  That Zelens’kyi does personally profit is a favorite idea of Vance, who repeats Russian propaganda to this effect.  The money does not even, for the most part, go to the Ukrainian government.  Most of the military aid does to American companies who build new weapons for American stockpiles.  We then send old weapons to Ukraine, to which we assign a dollar value.

The essential thing, though, is the antisemitic trope Trump chose to express himself.  It goes like this.  Jews are cowards.  Jews never fight wars.  Jews stay away from the front.  Jews only cause wars that make other people suffer.  And then Jews make vast amounts of money from those wars.  Volodymyr Zelens’kyi, the Ukrainian president, is Jewish.  And thus “the greatest salesman on earth” for Trump.  And the corrupt owner of “yachts” for Vance.  A war profiteer, as in the antisemitic stereotype, not a courageous commander, as in reality. 

Indeed, most of what Trump says about Zelens’kyi, Ukraine, and and the war itself makes sense only within the antisemitic stereotype.  Trump never speaks about the Russian invasion itself.  He never recalls Russian war crimes.  He never mentions that Ukrainians are defending themselves or their basic ideas of what is right.  He certainly never admits that Zelens’kyi is the democratically-elected president of a country under vicious attack and who has comported himself with courage.  The war, for Trump, is just a scam — a Jewish scam. 

And that, of course, is why he thinks he can end it right away: he thinks he can just shoulder the Jew aside and deal with his fascist “friend” Putin, who for him is the “genius” in this situation, and who must be allowed to win.  Despite the evidence, Trump says that Russia always wins wars, dismissing both history (regular Russian losses such as the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War, the Polish-Bolshevik War, the Afghan War) and the actual events of the ongoing Russian invasion, in which Ukraine has taken back half the territory it lost and driven the Russian fleet from the Black Sea.  Russia is counting on Trump.  They need him in power to win their war, and they know it. 

It need hardly be said that if Trump throws American power on the Russian side, the “deal” that follows will not end the war.  It will only mean that Russia is able to kill more Ukrainians faster.  Trump will then claim that the deal itself was beautiful and perfect — and try to change the subject from the slaughter he brought about through his antisemitic hubris and admiration of Russian fascism.

And, of course, Snyder explains, Trump has warned Jewish groups that if he loses, it will be the fault of Jews. Anti-Semitism will be Trump’s legacy.

Retired FBI agent Frank Figliuzzi writes on the MSNBC website about the internal dangers to America. It’s not from immigrants, who are typically more law-abiding than the native-born, but from Neo-Nazi gangs.

He writes:

The federal indictment of 68 defendants accused of being members of (or being associated) with a criminal gang driven by race-based hate followed an investigation that led to the seizure of Nazi paraphernalia, including Adolf Hitler posters, and 97 pounds of fentanyl, federal officials said Wednesday. U.S. Attorney Martin Estrada, who announced the charges, called it one of the “largest takedowns in the history of the Department of Justice against a neo-Nazi, white supremacist, violent extremist organization.”

That announcement landing in the final weeks of a presidential election prompts us to contrast the facts of our crime problem with the fiction that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, would have us believe.

The dismantlement of the group that called itself the Peckerwoods, a San Fernando Valley arm of the notorious Aryan Brotherhood white supremacy organization, came in the form of charges for allegedracketeering, firearms trafficking, drug trafficking and financial fraud. If convicted as charged, some members, who adorn themselves with tattoos of swastikas and other hate symbols, could face life behind bars. The group was so heavily armed and so violent that the FBI deployed its elite Hostage Rescue Team from Quantico, Virginia, to support the arrests. According to the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, the Peckerwoods, a derogatory name historically used against white people, “has as its mission to plan attacks against racial, ethnic, religious minorities.”

Agents seized an arsenal of illegal guns, “bomb-making components” and dozens of kilograms of fentanyl, methamphetamine and heroin, according to law enforcement officials.

The details of this multifaceted investigation reveal a significant component of America’s crime problem: hardened, U.S.-born criminals who traffic in the drugs, guns and violence plaguing our country. This contrasts with the fact-free fearmongering fabrications being sold to MAGA believers. It’s not that minorities don’t commit crimes; nor is that migrants never murder or rape. But Trump and Vance want voters to believe our gun, drug and violence problems are being driven by migrants when the opposite is true…

During the vice presidential debate, Vance claimed the vast majority of illegal guns used in crimes here come from Mexican cartels. The truth is quite different; it’s the U.S. that’s arming Mexican cartels. We have detailed data demonstrating the extent to which American weapons are fueling the violence in Mexico, right down to the make and model of the guns found at crime scenes across the border.

Please open the link to read more about crime statistics and Trump-Vance’s hateful and phony war against immigrants.

A reader of the blog, who shall remain nameless, sends comments repeatedly to justify or minimize the massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas terrorists. Her comments are so offensive to me that they are in moderation, meaning I read them before approving or deleting them.

The reader believes that the terrorists intended to attack only military targets and kill only soldiers. She suggests that Israel overstated the number of civilian deaths to win sympathy. She argues that only “one baby” was killed. She also has claimed that most civilian deaths were caused by Israeli fire. She has also written, in comments I did not publish, that women were not raped by the terrorists: anyone who says so is lying. Even the hundreds of young people gunned down at the Rave, the all-night dance party, were killed by IDF helicopter fire, not Hamas.

Her “evidence” is found in an article that makes most of these assertions. Her reading seems to be confined to sources that hate Israel’s very existence and look forward to it being eliminated or dissolved, as Israelis “go back where they came from.” How will that work for the millions who were born in Israel or were expelled by Arab nations?

The article was written by a British journalist, Robert Inlakesh, who loathes Israel. He has written many anti-Israel articles. Here is a quote from one of them:

Whether we look at the Israeli political elite, military, police, intelligence, society or media, we see genocidal mania. This is because their narcissistic supremacist ideology is collapsing before their very eyes, they are beginning to realize that maintaining apartheid is no longer viable.

The opportunity for the Israelis to implement the only solution that would have enabled them to continue their existence has passed. If the Zionist regime was actually serious about the Oslo Accords and simply accepted international law as the consensus for a so-called two-state solution, they could have perhaps proceeded and actually maintained their regime. However, allowing the Palestinian people to gain access to basic human rights in only 22% of historic Palestine was not possible for them under their racist expansionist ideology.

We are now reaching the final phase of this settler colonial project and the Israelis have come to the realization that maintaining their ethno-supremacist regime of absolute privilege will mean exterminating and ethnically cleansing everyone in their way. They are so immersed in their own collective form of narcissism, in which they view themselves as both the victim and hero of the story, that stopping now is impossible. This is also why Israeli society is split down the middle on the question of what kind of ethno-supremacist regime they seek: whether that will be a secular or religious regime going forward.

Therefore, with full US backing they are slowly committing national suicide. This may be a process that is somewhat delayed if a ceasefire is reached in Gaza that prevents the immediate end of the regime by military means, but the war will continue in other ways. The West Bank will likely end up becoming their punching bag until they can again escalate elsewhere and the only promise that can be made to their own people is a future of perpetual war.

In reading his articles, I can’t find anywhere that he calls Arab nations “ethnostates,” although by his definition they are.

I have been clear on this blog about my desire for a ceasefire, for peace, and for a two-state solution. I have strongly condemned Benjamin Netanyahu for his unwillingness to seeek peace. But I have also condemned Hamas, not only for the October 7 attack, but for their unwillingness to seek peace and for hiding their quarters under the cover of schools, hospitals, and other civilian facilities. It’s not as if my opinion matters to world leaders. It doesn’t.

Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, in full knowledge that their attack would trigger an overwhelming Israeli military response. They were willing to sacrifice Gazan civilians because Hamas had secure underground hiding places for themselves

How do I know about the brutality of Hamas on October 7? I watched the videotapes made by the terrorists. I watched them murder people in their homes, their cars, their gardens, their bomb shelters. How do I know women were raped? Not only eyewitness testimony, but an indelible memory of a young Israeli woman lying in the back of a pickup truck, the bottom of her pants stained with blood, as terrorists sat around her, smiling broadly.

One house, to my knowledge, was hit by fire from an Israeli tank, and 13-14 Israelis who were sheltering there died.

Most of the carnage happened before the IDF arrived. The attack began about 6:30 am, and the Israeli forces did not get there until 3-4 pm. Why the long delay? An official inquiry will one day explain but Netanyahu won’t allow the inquiry until the fighting is over. Another despicable, self-serving action on his part. An impartial inquiry will surely fault him for failing to protect the peaceable kibbutzim that bordered Gaza, as well as the inexplicably slow response by the IDF to stop the attack.

As far as the number of children killed, UN sources say it was 29, not 1. At least 3,000 children in Gaza have died, but the number has doubtless multiplied since the story was written last November.

A site called Factcheck.org reported:

At least 29 children were killed when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. In addition, about 30 children were taken hostage by Hamas, the Associated Press reported…

There has been extensive news coverage of the Oct. 7 attack and the war, including stories on video footage from that day showing “Hamas gunmen cheering with apparent joy as they shot civilians on the road, and later stalking the pathways of kibbutzim and killing parents and children in their homes,” as BBC reported

As we have written, Israel’s National Center of Forensic Medicine has been working to identify the remains of those killed on Oct. 7. Forensic pathologist Chen Kugel, the head of the center, said the ages of those killed ranged from 3 months to 80 or 90 years, according to The Media Line, an American news outlet that covers the Middle East.

Kugel also told the Los Angeles Times that initially most of the bodies could be identified through DNA. Now, the staff’s work involves “reassembling and reconnecting pieces” of remains found in the landscapes where the killings occurred.

For example, what initially appeared to be a piece of charcoal was examined through a CT scan, Kugel said. The scan revealed, “These were people who were hugging one another and burned while they were tied together. It might be a parent and a child.”

Who is Factcheck.org?

Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation.

We currently receive support from the APPC endowment, which includes funding from the Annenberg Foundation and from the Annenberg School for Communication Trust at the University of Pennsylvania.

See its website for other funders.

During the height of the pandemic, President Trump sent COVID test kits to his good friend Vladimir Putin. So says a new book by Bob Woodward. Since Trump has been out of office, he has spoken to Putin at least seven times, Woodward says.

The Washington Post reports:

As the coronavirus tore through the world in 2020, and the United States and other countries confronted a shortage of tests designed to detect the illness, then-President Donald Trump secretly sent coveted tests to Russian President Vladimir Putin for his personal use.

Putin, petrified of the virus, accepted the supplies but took pains to prevent political fallout — not for him, but for his American counterpart. He cautioned Trump not to reveal that he had dispatched the scarce medical equipment to Moscow, according to a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward.

Putin, according to the book, told Trump, “I don’t want you to tell anybody because people will get mad at you, not me.”

Four years later, the personal relationship between the two men appears to have persisted, Woodward reports, as Trump campaigns to return to the White House and Putin orchestrates his bloody assault on Ukraine. In early 2024, the former president ordered an aide away from his office at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, so he could conduct a private phone call with the Russian leader, according to Woodward’s account.

The book does not describe what the two men purportedly discussed, and it quotes a Trump campaign official casting doubt on the supposed contact. But the unnamed Trump aide cited in the book indicated that the GOP standard-bearer may have spoken to Putin as many as seven times since Trump left the White House in 2021.

These interactions between Trump and the authoritarian leader of a country at war with an American ally form the basis of Woodward’s conclusion that Trump is worse than Richard M. Nixon, whose presidency was undone by the Watergate scandal exposed a half-century ago by Woodward and his Washington Post colleague Carl Bernstein.

“Trump was the most reckless and impulsive president in American history and is demonstrating the very same character as a presidential candidate in 2024,” Woodward writes in the book, “War,” which is set to be released Oct. 15.

Woodward concludes that Trump is unfit for office while Biden exhibited “steady and purposeful leadership.”

The book also covers Biden’s decision making in relation to the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Massachusetts voters will have a chance to vote on whether the state academic test–MCAS–should continue to be a high school graduation requirement.

The Boston Globe reports:

Roughly 58 percent of Massachusetts voters said they would support eliminating a requirement that students pass the MCAS examination to graduate high school, far outpacing the 37 percent who said they would vote to keep the mandate in place.

The measure, known as Question 2, is one of the most consequential on the ballot in Massachusetts, which by some measures boasts the best public school systems in the country. Despite that success, the Massachusetts Teachers Association and its leaders are leading the biggest revolt over testing in two decades, arguing the mandate puts too much focus on subjects tested by MCAS and creates too much anxiety and retesting of students.

The question speaks to the frustrations of many parents, including Felicia Torres, a 39-year-old Haverhill resident and mother of three. Her 9-year-old is smart, loves hockey, and enjoys math, but he “dreads and hates school” because he chafes at being taught “whatever they’re forced to learn,” she said.

“I honestly don’t think that a standardized test depicts how well a child will do,” said Torres, a nurse. “I just don’t think it’s accurate.”

The bid to eliminate the MCAS graduation requirement is riding huge advantages among female voters, with 64 percent saying they plan to vote “yes.” Perhaps most notably, 60 percent of independent voters also say they want to eliminate the mandate.

“That tells me it has an excellent chance of passing,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.

Typically, he said, those who are undecided about a ballot question ultimately vote against it if they are confused by it or are unsure about its impact, effectively siding with the status quo. In the case of Question 2, only about 4 percent of voters said they were undecided.

The question has split Democratic leaders, with Governor Maura Healey, House Speaker Ron Mariano, and Senate President Karen E. Spilka each opposed to eliminating the requirement while some members of Congress and state lawmakers joined the Massachusetts Teachers Union. But its support isn’t universal among teachers, either.

“You need some sort of tool and measurement stick in terms of how the school is performing,” said Luke, a 37-year-old Wakefield resident and eighth-grade social studies teacher who told pollsters he is voting against the question. He spoke to the Globe on the condition his full name not be used. “If you’re going to still carry out the MCAS, how do you think students are going to take it seriously when you’re saying it doesn’t need to be a requirement?”


Michelle H. Davis writes the blog “Lone Star Left” where she tracks events in Texas. She watched the VP debate and was stunned by JD Vance’s assertion that Mexicans send or smuggle guns into Texas. It’s just the reverse, she says.

She writes:

During this week’s VP debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz, Vance lied about many things. He spoke really fast, and he lied a lot. Presumably, that’s just who he is. While there have been plenty of fact-checks this week, there’s one topic we must drill down on and know the facts about because this topic has been one of the biggest drivers of mass migration over the years, and his like wasn’t only stupid. It was done with malice. 

That’s right, we’re talking about the Iron River. Here’s what he said: 

Why is the sound out of sync? I have no idea. Here’s the full video; this part is at the 56-minute mark.

Vance’s exact words: “Thanks to Kamala Harris’ open border, we’ve seen a massive influx in the number of illegal guns run by the Mexican drug cartel. So, that number then, the amount of illegal guns in our country, is higher today than it was three and a half years ago.”

Only a moron from Ohio, which is nowhere near a border, who peddles lies would come up with such a tall tale. JD Vance was referring to the Iron River, and it’s essential in the immigration discussion that we all know that it flows from North to South. 

What is the Iron River? 

The term “Iron River” refers to the large-scale trafficking of firearms from the United States to Mexico, where these weapons fuel cartel violence and crime. The term likely emerged from the constant, unrelenting flow of weapons, like a river, moving across the US-Mexico border. This metaphor emphasizes the steady and overwhelming volume of guns moving southward, often from states with looser gun regulations, into the hands of criminal organizations in Mexico.

Between 70% and 90% of firearms recovered from crime scenes in Mexico can be traced back to the US. Most of these guns are purchased in border states with more relaxed gun laws, particularly Texas, Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Florida. These five states accounted for 79% of the firearms traced back to the US between 2017 and 2021, with Texas alone responsible for more than 14,000 guns smuggled into Mexico. Trafficking networks exploit loose regulations, using “straw purchasers” to buy firearms legally and then transport them across the border.

This lie from Vance distorts the fact that the trafficking flow is mainly in the opposite direction—guns legally bought in the US are fueling violence in Mexico, not the other way around.

This is nothing new. The Iron River has been fueling mass migration for many years.

Please open the link to finish the story.

Rick Hess is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in D.C. that is underwritten in part by the billionaire DeVos family. I have always had very pleasant and rewarding exchanges with Rick, who is a very amiable guy. He often tries to stake out a middle ground on controversial issues, as he does here. He argues that he doesn’t know what Trump will do on education, if re-elected, and neither does anyone else. But he concludes that Trump is unikely to do anything radical in the way of defunding education programs or dismantling the Department. So, don’t believe what he says and disregard Project 2025.

Somehow I’m not assuaged.

Hess writes in Education Next:

This summer, musing on the Republican National Convention, I noted that the GOP has been fundamentally remade since 2016—a point deemed self-evident by right-leaning pundits (MAGA and Never-Trump alike) but that seems insufficiently appreciated by a whole lot of other observers.

This has yielded a lot of certainty in education circles as to what would happen under a Trump 2.0, much of which I find pretty dubious. I’ve done interviews with reporters who seem to take it as given that Trump would slash Title I, IDEA, and Pell Grants. One write-up after another has emphatically declared that the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 playbook is the blueprint for Trump 2.0. There’s a remarkable confidence that Trump’s administration would embrace budget-cutting, small-government, Mike Pence–Betsy DeVos conservatism, only far more aggressively than the last go-round.

Now, might they be right? Sure. But it’s not the way to bet. I want to take a moment to explain why.

For starters, keep in mind that Trump has never been a conservative in any traditional sense. He’s a showman, reality TV star, and longtime Democrat who stumbled into the presidency. In 2016, as the newbie in a party dominated by Tea Party and Reaganite conservatives, he was obligated to name Mike Pence VP and issue a list of Federalist Society–vetted Supreme Court nominees. Today, Trump is no longer so constrained: he is the Republican Party. Traditional conservatives—from Dick Cheney to Mitt Romney to Paul Ryan—have been purged. Trump’s VP pick is now J.D. Vance, a former Never-Trumper who subsequently bent the knee. Trump has thrown the pro-life wing of the GOP coalition under the bus, torn up a half-century of Republican foreign policy, and dumped those who advised him on judges last time.

The shift is only partly about Trump being unfettered. It’s also about the remaking of the Republican coalition. Republicans have bled socially moderate, fiscally conservative college grads while gaining working-class voters who kind of like New Deal/Great Society-type spending. Pence was a Reaganite, a small-government conservative who wanted to cut programs and reduce spending. Vance is a NatCon, an economic populist who greeted the news that Liz Cheney would be voting for Harris by denouncing the former member of the House Republican leadership as someone who gets “rich when America’s sons and daughters go off to die.” Where Reaganite conservatives talked about the need to reform Social Security and Medicare, Trump has promised he won’t touch them. This is decidedly not the Romney-Ryan Republican Party.

So, while it seems to elude much of the education commentariat, it should be regarded as an open question as to whether Trump 2.0 would actually commit to much budget-cutting or shrinking of the bureaucracy when it comes to education. Indeed, when asked about child care, Trump recently offered a word salad suggesting that his proposed tariffs would help fund a major expansion of federal programs. Last year, he pitched a federally-funded “American Academy,” which would open new vistas for Washington’s role in providing higher education. Trump has obviously promised aggressive action on key cultural hot points—from defunding anti-Semitic colleges to busting the higher-ed accreditation cartel—and such moves, while obviously right-leaning, imply a need for a robust federal presence.

As National Review’s Andy McCarthy observed in his debate postmortem last week, “Because he’s an opportunist with some conservative leanings, rather than a conservative in search of opportunities to advance the cause, Trump often can’t decide whether to deride Harris’s cynical policy shifts or try to get to her left.” Even in Trump’s first term, when he had an experienced team of small-government true believers, there was little cutting and a whole lot of deficit spending. Recall that it was Trump who supported the first big tranche of unconditional pandemic aid for schools, initiated the hugely expensive student loan pause, and spent his first term watching spending climb on programs he’d promised to cut.

Now, some readers may protest: “Yeah, but Trump told Elon Musk we should abolish the Department of Education, and Heritage’s Project 2025 calls for cutting education spending!” Fair points. Trump has made a slew of contradictory promises, and neither the GOP platform nor his track record offer much clarity as to what should be believed. After all, even as Trump was saying he’d like to abolish the Department, he was emphatically denouncing Project 2025 (written by first-term staff who may not be welcome back in a Trump 2.0) and insisting he hasn’t read it.


What’s the bottom line? The truth is that no one really knows how a Trump 2.0 would go. I’ll keep this simple: anyone who claims to know . . . doesn’t. It’s not clear who is advising Trump on education, who (other than his kids) would inhabit his inner circle, how much sway Vance will have, or who would make key calls on staffing. That said, it seems to me that there are three scenarios for a Trump 2.0 when it comes to education. Here they are, from least likely to most likely.

Trump Drains the Swamp. Trump governs as a Beltway-draining, government-cutting conservative, even after aggressively disavowing Heritage’s Project 2025, promising not to touch entitlements, and failing to downsize the federal education footprint in his first term. He goes after Title I, IDEA, and Pell, and he leans on Congress to dismantle the Department of Education. It’s doubtful he could convince centrist GOP senators like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski to go along with it, though, meaning Republicans would need a stunningly good election night in the Senate contests to put any of this in play.

Trump Seeks Retribution. Trump devotes his energy to waging his war of “retribution” on his “enemies”—going after the press, Democrats, and any RINOs who’ve earned his ire. His White House spends its time seeking to pull the U.S. out of our international commitments and launching a federally organized deportation effort as part of an aggressive immigration strategy. Amidst the maelstrom, education gets left to the White House’s domestic policy team and whoever winds up staffing the Department of Education—but little happens because of the energy consumed by the tumult and its aftermath.

Trump Puts Trump First. Trump approaches education through the same Trump-first lens as most issues. Because Trump likes things that are popular, he’ll slam colleges, gesture towards school choice, and bark at wokeness but won’t put any meaningful effort into cutting education spending or downsizing the Department. In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he emulates Biden-Harris by treating education as a pandering piñata. Rather than tough-minded budget cuts, I think he’s more likely to endorse universalizing free school lunch, tripling federal spending on IDEA (for “our very beautiful children with special needs”), or making college loans interest-free à la Sen. Rubio’s new bill.

Look, I’ll be the first to concede I could well be wrong. Trump’s an impulsive creature and, should he win, it’s a guessing game who’d wind up calling the shots on education in Trump 2.0. But if I had to bet, given what we know today, I strongly suspect the feverish talk of defunding and dismantling federal education will prove little more than a fever dream.

When Donald Trump appeared recently in Milwaukee, he described his plan for the future of the Department of Education. It’s not quite the same as the scenario in Project 2025, which envisions the total elimination of the U.S. Department of Education. Trump imagines it as a “department” with only two employees: A Cabinet Secretary and a secretary.

The severely shrunken Department would focus solely on the three Rs and would somehow mysteriously have the power and personnel to prevent public schools across the nation from teaching anything connected to “woke.” That is, anything related to race, gender, or social justice. How this fictional Department would impose bans on curriculum when federal law prohibits any federal interference in curriculum is not explained. Actually, it’s nonsense.

Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling writes in The New Republic about Trump’s vision for the federal role in education:

Donald Trump has fleshed out his Project 2025–inspired Department of Education plan, and it involves handing the reins and lofty responsibilities of public school administration over to a group of people with all the time in the world: parents.

“I figure we’ll have like one person plus a secretary,” the Republican presidential nominee told a crowd in Milwaukee Tuesday night. “You’ll have a secretary to a secretary. We’ll have one person plus a secretary, and all the person has to do is, ‘Are you teaching English? Are you teaching arithmetic? What are you doing? Reading, writing, and arithmetic. And are you not teaching woke?’

“Not teaching woke is a big factor,” Trump continued. “We’ll have a very small staff. We can occupy that staff right in this room, actually I think this room is too large. And all they’re going to do is they’re going to see that the basics are taken care of. You know, we don’t want someone to get crazy and start teaching a language that we don’t want them to teach.”

Not only do parents already have enough on their plates without trying to run the public school system, it’s likely that Trump has a specific group of parents in mind to direct education policy.

The goals he lays out are startlingly akin to the policy points of the far-right “parents’ rights” group Moms for Liberty, who hosted Trump as the keynote speaker at their annual conference in September. Moms for Liberty has recently ingratiated itself significantly into national politics and was listed as a member of Project 2025’s advisory board.

In the same speech, Trump also drew attention to the amount of real estate occupied in D.C. by Department of Education buildings, plotting that the dissolution of the federal agency would allow “somebody else to move in.”

“They’re run by the state, and run by the parents, because in Washington—you know half of the buildings, such a large number, every building you pass in Washington says Department of Education,” Trump said. “You’re gonna have a lot of vacant space. Now we can have maybe somebody else move in.” 

Trump’s proposal to dismantle the Department of Education wholesale is nearly identical to Project 2025, despite his campaign spending months trying to distance itself from the 920-page Christian nationalist manifesto.

Fact check: Trump exaggerated the size and physical space occupied by ED. The U.S. Department of Education is smaller than any other Cabinet department; it has 4,400 employees. It occupies a building at 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC. It rents space at 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW. it does not occupy all or most or many buildings in DC.

On this somber day, I have had a heavy heart. One year ago, Hamas terrorists launched an invasion of Israel, brutally killing families in their homes and young people at an all-night dance.

The situation has grown progressively worse since then. Israel responded forcefully, as Hamas hoped. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Gaza have died as a result of Israel’s punishing response. Hamas knew that would happen.

Hezbollah, the terrorist group that destroyed the government of Lebanon, has rained missiles and rockets on Israel for a year. Israel has now invaded Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah.

There is plenty of blame to go around, including to Netanyahu, who has not been willing to reach a ceasefire in Gaza (nor has Hamas).

A solution must be found, and the only genuine solution involves two states–one for the Israelis, one for the Palestinians. And a genuine commitment to peace.

The AFT posted an excellent commentary, which I share with you.

National_release_864x131 (002).jpg
For Immediate Release
Monday, October 7, 2024

Contact:
Andrew Crook
607-280-6603
acrook@aft.org
AFT Responds to Anniversary of Oct. 7 attacks

WASHINGTON—The AFT released a video produced in collaboration with the union’s partners in the Middle East and issued the following statement from President Randi Weingarten commemorating the first anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks:

“There are some moments that change the trajectory of our lives. Sept. 11 was one of those moments for the United States. Oct. 7, 2023, was one for Israel, Gaza and now the entire Middle East region.

“That day, Hamas brutally attacked Israelis, Jews, Muslims, Bedouins and Asian guest workers in the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Twelve hundred people were killed, raped, injured or taken hostage. Since that day, so much more destruction and pain have happened in the ensuing war: The flattening of Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces. The massive humanitarian needs. The relentless attacks on Israeli citizens by Hezbollah. The ongoing and indiscriminate attacks by Jewish settlers on Palestinian land on the West Bank. The holding of hostages by Hamas, and the refusal by Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to consummate a cease-fire. And now, the bombing by Iran and the certain Israeli response.

“The pain is overwhelming in the region; and here at home, the events have deeply affected our schools, our workplaces and our communities.

“We mourn the dead and we pray for the living. We pray for peace, an end to this war, an end to violence, the return of the hostages and a path forward.

“Rather than resolutions or statements (of which we have many) denouncing hate and calling for an end to the war, among other things, on this anniversary of Oct. 7, we wanted to hear and to highlight the voices of Jews and Palestinians who live in the region —who are fighting for another way, who are fighting for peace and security, freedom, justice and self-determination for both peoples.

“Lifting up Jewish and Palestinian voices is essential, which is why our union has brought groups like Standing TogetherParents Circle and Hand in Hand to the U.S., so we can engage with people who are fighting for a better life and for peace. We need to listen to their voices. They show us the path forward.

“It’s clear the only way forward is to forgo the violence that’s defined the region for decades in favor of a peaceful solution.

“Since 2016, our union has been on that path—the path of two states for two peoples, of deepening engagement, of rejecting the binary. That is why we invited some of our allies to reflect on Oct. 7 and the ensuing destruction that has traumatized Israelis and Palestinians, as well as to share their hopes and aspirations for a more peaceful future.

“Please take a few minutes to watch this video and share it with your colleagues, friends and family so they too can hear these remarkable testimonies. You may agree or disagree—that is your right—but hear them. Listen to them. They are trying to forge a path forward for peace, freedom, security and self-determination for the 7 million Palestinians and the 7 million Jews who call Israel and the Palestinian territories their home.”


The AFT represents 1.8 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers; paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; federal, state and local government employees; nurses and healthcare workers; and early childhood educators.