Thom Hartmann: Is Trump a KGB Agent?

By dianeravitch
March 12, 2026 //
15

Thom Hartmann asks a question that many have suspected but were reluctant (or afraid) to say out loud: Is Donald Trump a KGB agent? Does Trump take orders from Putin? How else to account for his close alignment with Putin’s wishes? How else to explain his habit of checking with Putin before he talks to Zelensky? How else to explain his efforts to torpedo NATO? How else to explain his obeisance to Putin? How else to explain the glee he expressed while waiting to meet Putin in Alaska, rolling out the red carpet and pacing excitedly? Why else would Trump put relations with Putin in the hands of personal friends and his son-in-law, not career foreign service officers? Why meetings between them with no one else present to take notes or translate?

This is the only post that will appear today.

Hartmann writes:

Eight of our American service members are dead and over 140 wounded because Iran’s military has suddenly gotten really good at targeting our soldiers, Airmen, and Marines. News reports say they’ve been able to hit us with such precision because Russia is using their extraordinary spy satellite, spy plane, and advanced radar capabilities to help Iran’s military.

The Washington Post, which first reported on this, quoted a Russian military expert as saying that Iran is now “making very precise hits on early-warning radars or over-the-horizon radars,” seeming to validate the concern. The article added:

“Iran possesses only a handful of military-grade satellites, and no satellite constellation of its own, which would make imagery provided by Russia’s much more advanced space capabilities highly valuable — particularly as the Kremlin has honed its own targeting after years of war in Ukraine…”

When asked about the reports, Trump — who’d just returned from the soldiers’ bodies’ dignified transfer — basically downplayed Russian efforts to hurt Americans, just like he did when he learned in 2020 that Putin was paying Afghan insurgents a bounty to kill our soldiers. He pointed out that the US had been sharing intelligence with Ukraine during the Biden administration, so apparently, according to him, Russia is justified in helping Iran kill American service members:

“They’d say we do it against them. Wouldn’t they say that we do it against them?”

His fellow real estate billionaire, Steve Witkoff (whose sons are making billions with Trump’s sons in the Middle East and has been regularly traveling to Moscow for private meetings with Putin) similarly shrugged off the report, tellingCNBC:

“I can tell you that yesterday, on the call with [President Trump], the Russians said they have not been sharing. That’s what they said. So, we can take them at their word, but they did say that.” Witkoff later added, “Let’s hope that they’re not sharing.”

Putin himself, though, was nowhere near as circumspect, saying:

“On my part, I want to confirm our unwavering support of Tehran and our solidarity with our Iranian friends. Russia has been and will remain the Islamic Republic’s reliable partner.”

As if to confirm that Trump is Putin’s toady, just last week, in the wake of Iran shutting off the Strait of Hormuz and cutting oil supplies to Asia and the Subcontinent, our president signed a waiver to our Russia sanctions so Putin can now sell unlimited amounts of Russian oil directly to India.

Every time Putin says “Jump,” Trump asks, “How high?”

Which raises the question: “Why? Why does Trump always give Putin whatever he wants and why is he so terrified of speaking out against him?”

Is it possible that Trump is actively working for Putin? What if Putin somehow owns him? Or is blackmailing him? And has been running him as an Russian asset since at least 2017?

That sort of treason would be more important than Russian agents Robert Hanssen (life without parole), Aldrich Ames (life without parole), or Ethel and Julius Rosenberg (death penalty).

And let’s not forget that right after Trump won re-election in November of 2024, Russian state TV published explicit nudie pictures of Melania Trump and their anchors were laughing about it and at Trump. Was this Putin’s first assertion this cycle that he still owns Donald?

Jack Smith’s case in Florida was limited to Trump stealing sensitive documents and sharing them on two publicly known occasions (and didn’t even reference other known acts like Kid Rock’s allegation that Trump showed him Top Secret maps in the White House: this was apparently a regular thing for Trump).

That said, you can bet your bottom dollar that the FBI and other agencies worked as hard as they could to contain the damage done by Trump’s leaving documents that could cause “grave damage” to America in public places where spies could simply waltz in and take cell-phone pictures of them by attending a wedding or paying $200,000 for essentially unlimited access Club membership.

But what if it goes beyond that? What if Putin has owned him for years?

From Russian oligarchs laundering money through Trump’s operations — real estate is the most common device used worldwide for money laundering — to keeping him alive in his most difficult times, like those multiple bankruptcies in the 1990s when he almost lost everything?

Or perhaps blackmailing him?

What if Putin got him the presidency, and he knows that if America found out for sure, it would destroy him? Or has Epstein’s videos of Trump with underage girls? Or his own pictures, taken when Trump was in Moscow for one of his beauty pageants? 

Which begs the question: exactly how much damage might Trump have already done to our nation, and what does he have planned for the next three years of this second term?

And is he getting ongoing day-to-day instructions from Putin, which explains why he’s so reluctant to discuss their conversations, as Rachel Maddow recently documented?

In 2019 The Washington Post revealed that, throughout his last presidency, Donald Trump was having regular secret phone conversations with Russia’s President Putin (over 20 have been identified so far, including one just days beforethe 2020 election).

The Moscow Project from the American Progress Action Fund documents more than 270 known contacts between Russia-linked operatives and members of the Trump campaign and transition team, as well as at least 38 known meetings just leading up to the 2016 election.

The manager of his 2016 campaign, Paul Manafort — who was previously paid tens of millions by Vladimir Putin’s people to install a pro-Putin puppet as Ukraine’s president in 2010 — has admitted that he was regularly feeding secret inside-campaign strategy and polling information to Russian intelligence via the oligarch who typically paid him on their behalf.

Throughout the campaign, Manafort let Russian intelligence know where Trump needed help, and when, and it appears Russia jumped in to social media to provide the needed help.

Trump pardoned Manafort, which got him out of prison and ended any investigations. He’s still fabulously rich from his work for Russia.

As The New York Times noted in 2020:

“[I]nvestigators found enough there to declare that Mr. Manafort created ‘a grave counterintelligence threat’ by sharing inside information about the presidential race with Mr. Kilimnik and the Russian and [pro-Russian] Ukrainian oligarchs whom he served.”

There is no known parallel to this behavior by any president in American history — one could argue it easily exceeds Benedict Arnold’s audacity — and bringing documents to Mar-a-Lago was just the tip of the iceberg.

The Washington Post reported in 2022 that Trump had a habit of carrying top-secret information that could severely damage our national security, leaving it in hotel rooms in hostile nations.

Was he bringing these documents with him to sell? Or just to show to leaders or oligarchs in those countries to impress them? Or because Putin, who has agents in those countries, told him to?

Trump doesn’t put all that effort into hauling things around unless it’s extraordinarily important to his ego or he thinks he can makes money off them. Or he’s scared.

“Boxes of documents even came with Trump on foreign travel,” The Post noted, “following him to hotel rooms around the world — including countries considered foreign adversaries of the United States.”

When Robert Mueller’s FBI team tried to investigate Trump’s ties to Russia and his possibly sharing sensitive military information with them, they were stonewalled.

The Mueller Report identified ten specific instances of Trump himself trying to obstruct the investigation, including offering the bribe of a pardon to Paul Manafort, asking FBI Director Comey to “go easy” on General Flynn after his dinner with Putin, and directing Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit Mueller’s ability to investigate Trump’s connections to Russia.

As the Mueller Report noted:

“The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation.

“For instance, the President attempted to remove the Attorney General; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions un-recuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government.”

It adds, detailing Trump’s specific Obstruction of Justice crimes:

“These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

There are, after all, credible assertions from American intelligence that when Trump was elected, members of Russian intelligence and Putin’s inner circle were literally partying in Moscow, celebrating a victory they believed they made happen.

And apparently Putin and his intelligence operatives had good reason to be popping the champagne in November, 2016. They were quickly paid off in a big way.

In his first months in office, Trump outed an Israeli spy to the Russian Ambassador in what he thought was going to be a “secret Oval Office meeting” (the Russians released the photo to the press), resulting in MOSAD having to “burn” (relocate, change identity of) that spy.

The undercover agent was apparently working in Syria that year against the Russians, who were embroiled in the midst of Assad’s Civil War and indiscriminately bombing Aleppo into rubble.

That, in turn, prompted the CIA to worry that a longtime American spy buried deep in the Kremlin was similarly vulnerable to Trump handing him over to Putin.

As CNN noted (when the story leaked two years later):

“The source was considered the highest level source for the US inside the Kremlin, high up in the national security infrastructure, according to the source familiar with the matter and a former senior intelligence official.

“According to CNN’s sources, the spy had access to Putin and could even provide images of documents on the Russian leader’s desk.”

The CIA concluded that the risk Trump had burned or was about to burn our spy inside the Kremlin was so great that — at massive loss to US intelligence abilities that may even have otherwise helped forestall the invasion of Ukraine — they pulled our spy out of Russia in the first year of Trump’s presidency, 2017.

Similarly, when they met in Helsinki on July 16, 2018, Trump and Putin talked in private for several hours and Trump ordered his translators’ notes destroyed; there is also concern that much of their conversation was done out of the hearing of the US’s translator (Putin is fluent in English) who may have been relegated to a distant part of the rather large empty ballroom in which they met.

The Washington Post reported, after a leak six months later, that when Trump met privately for those two hours with Putin the CIA went into “panic mode.” A US intelligence official told the Post:

“There was this gasp’ at the CIA’s Langley, Virginia headquarters. You literally had people in panic mode watching it at Langley. On all floors. Just shock.”

Three weeks after Trump’s July 16, 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki, Senator Rand Paul made a solo trip to Moscow to personally hand-deliver a document or package of documents from Trump to Putin. Its contents are still unknown, although Paul told the press it was a “personal” letter of some sort.

Senator Paul has also consistently taken Trump’s and Putin’s side with regard to the Ukraine war: he single-handedly blocked a $40 billion military aid package in the Senate. When the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, he responded with a call for the repeal of the Espionage Act. He further suggested the FBI may have “planted” Secret documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Ten days after Paul’s trip to Moscow, The New York Times reported that the CIA was freaked out because their sources inside Moscow had suddenly “gone silent”:

“The full reasons the sources have gone silent are not known,” the Times reported, but Trump having intentionally given a man working for the FBI to Putin — a man whose job at that time was to find and reveal Russian agents involved in or close to the Trump campaign — may also have had something to do with it:

“[C]urrent and former officials said the exposure of sources inside the United States has also complicated matters,” noted the Times. “This year, the identity of an F.B.I. informant, Stefan Halper, became public after [Trump-loyal MAGA Republican] House lawmakers sought information on him and the White House allowed the information to be shared. Mr. Halper, an American academic based in Britain, had been sent to talk to Trump campaign advisers who were under F.B.I. scrutiny for their ties to Russia.”

Things were picking up the following year, in 2019, as Putin was planning his invasion of Ukraine while Trump was preparing for the 2020 election.

In July 2019, Trump had conversations with five foreign leaders during and just before a presidential visit that month to Mar-a-Lago; they included Putin and the Emir of Qatar.

In one of those conversations, according to a high-level US Intelligence source, Trump “made promises” to a “world leader” that were so alarming it provoked a national security scramble across multiple agencies.

As The Washington Post noted in an article titled, “Trump’s communications with foreign leader are part of whistleblower complaint that spurred standoff between spy chief and Congress”:

“Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson determined that the complaint [against Trump] was credible and troubling enough to be considered a matter of ‘urgent concern,’ a legal threshold that requires notification of congressional oversight committees.”

On the last day of that month, July 31, Trump had another private conversation with Putin.

The White House spokespeople told Congress and the press that Trump said that he and Putin discussed “wildfires” and “trade between the nations.” No droids in this car…

But the following week, on August 2nd, The Daily Beast’s Betsy Swan reported that Trump had that week asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for a list of all its employees (including all our “spies”) who had worked there more than 90 days, and the request had intelligence officials experiencing “disquiet.”

Perhaps just by coincidence, months after Trump left office with cases of classified documents, The New York Times ran a story with the headline Captured, Killed or Compromised: C.I.A. Admits to Losing Dozens of Informants:

“Top American counterintelligence officials warned every C.I.A. station and base around the world last week,” the Times’ story’s lede began, “about troubling numbers of informants recruited from other countries to spy for the United States being captured or killed, people familiar with the matter said.

“The message, in an unusual top secret cable, said that the C.I.A.’s counterintelligence mission center had looked at dozens of cases in the last several years involving foreign informants who had been killed, arrested or most likely compromised. Although brief, the cable laid out the specific number of agents executed by rival intelligence agencies — a closely held detail that counterintelligence officials typically do not share in such cables.”

And now, to complicate matters, it appears Elon Musk took with him access to the payroll records of all of our nation’s spies and other foreign intelligence agents. The Elon Musk who, himself, The Wall Street Journal reports has also reportedly been having his own secret conversations with Putin.

If it turns out that Trump has been acting as an agent for Russia, how long might this have been going on?

Czechoslovakia’s Státní bezpečnost (StB) first started paying attention to Trump back in 1977, as documented by the German newspaper Bild when the StB’s files were declassified, because Trump married Czech model Ivana Zelnickova, his first wife, recently buried on his golf course in New Jersey.

Czechoslovakia at that time was part of the Warsaw Pact with the Soviet Union, and Ivana and her family had been raised as good communists. Now that a Czech citizen was married into a wealthy and prominent American family, the StB saw an opportunity and started tracking Trump virtually from his engagement.

As 2016 and 2018 investigations by The Guardian found:

“Ivana’s father, Miloš Zelníček, gave regular information to the local StB office about his daughter’s visits from the US and on his celebrity son-in-law’s career in New York. Zelníček was classified as a ‘conspiratorial’ informer. His relationship with the StB lasted until the end of the communist regime.”

An investigative reporting breakthrough by Craig Unger for his book American Kompromat led Unger to Uri Shvets, a former KGB spy who’d been posted to Washington, DC for years as a correspondent for the Soviet news agency TASS.

Shvets told the story — from his own knowledge — of how Trump and Ivana visited Moscow in 1987 and were essentially recruited or seduced by the KGB, a trip corroborated by Luke Harding in his book Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win.

Their trip was coordinated by Intourist, the Soviet travel agency that was a front for the KGB, and the Trumps’ handlers regaled Donald and Ivana with Soviet talking points, presumably about things like the horrors of NATO.

The KGB’s psychological profile of Trump had determined he was vulnerable to flattery and not much of a deep thinker, so they told him repeatedly how brilliant he was and that he should run for president in the US.

Much to the astonishment and jubilation of the KGB, Trump returned from Moscow to the US to give a Republican presidential campaign speech that fall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

He then purchased a large ad in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe on September 1, 1987 that questioned America’s ongoing support of Japan and NATO, both thorns in the side of the USSR and their Chinese allies.

Trump’s ad laid it on the line:

“Why are these nations not paying the United States for the human lives and billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests? … The world is laughing at America’s politicians as we protect ships we don’t own, carrying oil we don’t need, destined for allies who won’t help.”

As The Guardian reported in 2021:

“The bizarre intervention was cause for astonishment and jubilation in Russia. A few days later Shvets, who had returned home by now, was at the headquarters of the KGB’s first chief directorate in Yasenevo when he received a cable celebrating the ad as a successful ‘active measure’ executed by a new KGB asset.

“’It was unprecedented,’ [Shvets said.] … It was hard to believe that somebody would publish it under his name and that it will impress real serious people in the west but it did and, finally, this guy became the president.’”

Meanwhile, Putin was making friends with powerful influence over American foreign policy.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who flipped his nation into a strongman neofascist state following an unsuccessful attempted coup in 2016 (he imprisoned and tortured numerous journalists and political opponents), has been deepening his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin ever since that US election year.

In 2017, Erdoğan apparently gained access to America’s deepest secrets by secretly paying off General Michael Flynn even as Flynn became Trump’s National Security Advisor, who also had at least one secret phone conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak after Flynn started working in the White House.

Flynn pleaded guilty in December of 2017 to “willfully and knowingly” making “false, fictitious and fraudulent statements” to the FBI about one of those conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Flynn was also an unregistered agent of a foreign government while working in the White House: he had taken about a half-million dollars from Erdoğan.

Around the time he was leaving office, Trump pardoned Flynn, essentially burying the entire story.

From campaigning to destroy NATO to selling out Ukraine to letting Russia help kill American soldiers in the Gulf region, Trump’s goal appears to be, to paraphrase Ron DeSantis, to “Make America Russia.”

The big question is, “Why?”

Categories Extremism, Fraud, Lies, Trump

Federal Judge Declares Trump Choice of Three Prosecutors to be Illegal

By dianeravitch
March 11, 2026 //
3

Trump and his Department of Justice have a very bad practice of appointing federal prosecutors without bothering to have them confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as the Constitution requires.

Several of his choices have been disqualified by federal courts. If a vacancy exists, the judges appoint a replacement. But Trump and Bondi then fire the judges’s choice.

Remember Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s personal attorney? He named her the U.S. Attorney for Eastern Virginia. She got an indictment against New York State Attorney General Letitia James, but she was never confirmed by the Senate. After six months as interim U.S. Attorney, she was removed by federal judges, and the indictment she won was dismissed as illegal.

In New Jersey, Trump picked another personal attorney, Alina Habba, as U.S. Attorney, again bypassed the Senate, and a panel of judges removed her. When the judges named a qualified replacement, Trump and the Department of Justice fired him. Having been involved in more than 4,000 lawsuits, Trump has a very long list of personal attorneys.

The DOJ selected three prosecutors to take the place of Alina Habba.

Judge Matthew W. Brann ruled that the appointment of the three prosecutors was illegal. Brann, a conservative Republican appointed by Obama, said that this unconstitutional maneuver put in jeopardy all the convictions secured by this office since December, when the troika took charge.

He wrote:

Using italics that demonstrated the heightened tenor of his ruling, he wrote that the Trump administration had shown through its statements and actions that it cared far more about who was running the New Jersey U.S. attorney’s office “than whether it is running at all.”

Judge Brann pointedly said that the president’s continued reliance on unlawful mechanisms to appoint top federal prosecutors meant that “scores of dangerous criminals could have their cases dismissed or convictions eventually reversed…”

During Mr. Trump’s second term, when judges have installed a U.S. attorney, the Justice Department has fired them. After it did so with an interim U.S. attorney in upstate New York recently, the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, wrote on social media: “Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution.”

Judge Brann, a federal judge who typically sits in Pennsylvania but was designated to handle the matter in New Jersey, referred to that statement and others like it as “combative (and legally incomplete).” He said that such assertions clearly indicated that “the Department of Justice would not permit anyone to hold any United States attorney’s office if that person was not handpicked by the president…”

Judge Brann joins a growing collection of district court judges in New Jersey and around the country whose rulings are increasingly colored by their frustration with what they have consistently characterized as the lawless behavior of the Trump administration.

In several such rulings, judges appear to be seeking strategies to address frequent violations of the law. At least three in New Jersey have proposed new processes or tactics that they clearly hope will curb the administration’s conduct.

At the same time, the administration has grown more and more belligerent toward the judiciary. Top officials ridiculed the Supreme Court after it ruled against Mr. Trump’s tariffs, and Justice Department lawyers began an appeals court brief last week by saying: “Courts cannot tell the president what to say. Courts cannot tell the president what not to say.”

Since last summer, the New Jersey prosecutor’s office has been a casualty of the chaos created by the Trump administration’s moves to retain control. Dozens of seasoned lawyers have left the office, and trial court judges have been forced to grapple with the possibility that decisions they make about criminal cases could be overturned.

The Trump administration is trying to destroy what it does not control: the electoral process, the legal system, the public’s belief in the fairness of democracy as a way of government.

Categories Accountability, Ethics, Justice, Trump

Inexcusable Incompetence!

By dianeravitch
March 11, 2026 //
2

Jennifer Rubin, ex-columnist for The Washington Post, now leads The Contrarian, a home for dissatisfied ex-Republicans and outraged democrats. She wrote the following.

“Everyone saw this coming except the President.” An “unmitigated disaster of epic proportions.” Were these the words from Democrats decrying Donald Trump for failing to plan to evacuate hundreds of thousands of civilians under a blizzard of retaliatory fire raining down on the Gulf States? No, those were Republicans excoriating former president Joe Biden for the botched 2021 exit from Afghanistan. Back then, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) thundered, “It’s a very dire situation when you see the United States Embassy being evacuated.”

Fast forward to last week. The Trump regime closed down three of our embassies (Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Kuwait), abandoning U.S. citizens in those countries. Trump’s minions failed to consider advanced planning to evacuate Americans from the region, leaving them to fend for themselves in places where missiles are flying and buildings are ablaze.

Story after story has documented Americans scared, stranded, and left to find their own transportation out of countries made dangerous by his careless whims. Many have expressed their understandably fury that their government could be so derelict. The State Department has failed spectacularly in one of its essential missions — protecting Americans around the world.

The Trump regime’s level of recklessness and indifference to human life and international order should appall all Americans. Trump’s excuse for making no evacuation plans — “Well, because it happened all very quickly” — is ludicrous, considering the U.S. and Israel apparently spent months planning the military assault. His jaw-dropping admission that Iran’s bombardment of neighboring countries in retaliation was “probably the biggest surprise” reflects how little thought he put into a war with global ramifications.

Even in Afghanistan in 2021, after initial mayhem, the State Department scrambled, mounted a all-hands-on-deck rescue operation, enlisted personnel worldwide, and evacuated over 100,000 people in just a couple weeks. We see no comparable sense of urgency now.

Foreign policy professionals who have planned and executed mass evacuations of civilians in war zones over decades blasted Trump’s negligence. State Department veteran and Middle East expert Jeffrey Feltman recently argued, “It is a complete dereliction of duty for President Trump and his administration to have been planning this war for the past month, however long it’s been since they’ve been moving assets, without planning for an evacuation of American citizens.” He expounded on the cavalier and irresponsibly failure to protect Americans:

You know, Biden rightly got criticized for the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. But we’re talking now about the potential of… American citizens being trapped in 14 different countries when they could have been planning all along for how they were going to deal with this. Right now, right now, the statements are, “Use commercial means to leave.” Well, there are no commercial means to leave. There’s been some hints they’re looking at this, but they could have put all this in place.

How could they not have expected a country with a stockpile of missiles would retaliate across the region, endangering tens of thousands of Americans? Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s pathetic excuses for neglecting elemental steps to protect Americans left Democrats, ordinary people, and foreign policy insiders flabbergasted.

Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) reported his office was inundated with “panicked calls from Americans stuck in the Middle East, outraged that our government has provided zero evacuation support.” Combat veteran Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) was outraged by the absence of any “evacuation plan for Americans in the region when he launched his reckless, needless and unconstitutional war of choice against Iran.” Others joined in denouncing the institutional malpractice. 

This display of incompetence should not surprise us, given that the MAGA crew harbors such contempt for government. The massive cuts and loss of scores of foreign policy professionals (collectively representing centuries of experience) mean institutional knowledge is scarce. DOGE cuts conducted by know-nothing twenty year olds, partisan witch hunts, early retirements, and mass resignations have hollowed out the State Department, leaving it in the hands of a skeletal staff retained for their political loyalty — not expertise and experience. (Rubio also slashed staff at the National Security Council, which is supposed to oversee interagency planning.) In any other administration, the secretary of state/national security adviser would get canned or forced to resign in disgrace after such management malpractice.

As Columbia University Professor Elizabeth Saunders explained, Trump and Rubio’s “gutting of the State Department and blowtorching of US diplomatic capacity and credibility is an accelerant to this spiraling war and will seriously undercut US/allied efforts to pick up the pieces after.” If they bollixed up something as foreseeable as evacuations, imagine what chaos will ensure when the fighting stops.

For over a year, buffoonish Cabinet secretaries and their senior advisers have demonstrated the Trump regime is no “meritocracy.” As in all corrupt regimes that value sycophancy over competence, avoidable errors multiply over time. Americans trapped in a regional war zone (not to mention our armed service and regional allies) now pay the price for an unhinged and impulsive president enabled by careless, juvenile advisers who think war is a video game.

Meanwhile, no one at the White House has the temerity to contradict Trump’s “gut” impulses. Without aides to restrain Trump’s whims (e.g., Mr. President we need to get the Americans out first), he blunders forward.

To compound the problem, MAGA’s cult of personality that necessitates Republicans abdicate their legislative responsibilities, Congress would have voted for a war powers resolution, or at the very least, initiated aggressive oversight. Alas, the Republicans (who have time to quiz the Clintons behind closed doors about the pedophile scandal) show no interest in determining how this travesty unfolded and what is being done to remedy it. Instead, Hill staffers are left to field angry calls from constituents begging for help.

Congress must rouse itself to focus on a foreign policy disaster that makes the Iraq War look like a masterstroke. Rubio and other top officials under oath and in public should answer for their lapses, account for every dime spent, and give Congress some basic information. (What is the plan to extract Americans? When does the war end? Are we now targeting civilians?) The last thing Congress should do is agree to any request, as the Trump team is reportedly contemplating, to shovel more money into the coffers of this gang of bumblers.

Unfortunately, we know how this will play out. Trump and his arrogant yes-men will never admit error, let alone apologize; Republicans on the Hill will not stir themselves to do their jobs. It will be up to the voters to throw out every elected Republican and force removal of the architects of this catastrophe. Until that happens, Americans here and abroad will needlessly suffer and die

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Disruption, Extremism, Stupid, Trump

Arkansas Increases Funding for Vouchers, a Bonanza for Kids in Private Schools

By dianeravitch
March 11, 2026 //
0

Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders is holding the line on spending, except for vouchers, which h will get a big boost. About 85% of the students using vouchers never attended public schools, so Governor Sanders is handing out money to pay for students already enrolled in private and religious schools.

Poor people in Arkansas don’t get much help in the budget, but affluent families get tax cuts and vouchers to pay for private schools, religious schools, and home schools.

The Arkansas Times reports:

Arkansas lawmakers are set to convene April 8 to hash out next year’s state budget. In a Wednesday letter to lawmakers, Sanders said she’s proposing a 3% increase, a pretty standard figure on par with recent years.

But what’s going to be funded in this mostly flat spending plan, and what’s not? At first blush, it looks like well-to-do Arkansans are the big winners, cashing in on private school vouchers and more income tax cuts.

Sanders’ proposed 2026-27 budget, presented to lawmakers by Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration Director Jim HudsonWednesday morning, includes up to $379 million for the Arkansas LEARNS vouchers that parents who opt out of traditional public schools can tap to pay private school or homeschool expenses. That’s a big increase over the $187 million budgeted for vouchers last time.

The 2025-26 school year was the first in which all students in Arkansas were eligible for these vouchers, and the price tag keeps creeping higher. Ballooning costs are pretty much a given, based on what’s happened in other states that pioneered this tricky transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to their wealthy overlords by paying fancy kids’ tony tuitions for them. Just ask Arizona and Florida. 

Lawmakers have made a number of adjustments and budget increases for LEARNS after voucher costs quickly exceeded the budgeted amount. In January, a legislative committee signed off on giving another $32 million in one-time reserve funds to Arkansas’s newly universal school voucher program, bringing its total cost in the current 2025-26 school year to $309.4 million, which covers more than 44,000 students. That $309 million is the base amount proposed for 2026-27, but Sanders’ budget proposes an extra $70 million for it, just in case.

Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families warned in January that vouchers are doing all the things opponents warned they would: creating new spending obligations for taxpayers to cover private school tuitions and other costs that were never on the public dime before; chipping away at public schools’ financial resilience; and generally busting budgets. 

These set-aside amounts that were incorporated into the state’s school voucher fund this year, and which are being teed up to be added next year to the tune of $70 million, look a lot like a trap. Last go-round, lawmakers approved about $187 million for vouchers, but then added another $122 million to the school voucher cause in piecemeal fashion over the course of the fiscal year, to ultimately spend $309 million. Now lawmakers are looking at $309 million as the floor for voucher spending for 2026-27, and will almost certainly throw in that set-aside $70 million, too (if not more). How many hundreds of millions more are we going to add in these payouts for the well-to-do each year, in slapdash fashion? Don’t say we didn’t warn you!

Categories Accountability, Arkansas, Education Industry, Religion, School Choice, Separation of church and state, Vouchers

Dr. Mike DeGuire: The Public Doesn’t Want Vouchers. Why Are They Spreading?

By dianeravitch
March 11, 2026 //
2

Dr. Mike DeGuire is a lifelong educator who served as a principal of a public school in Denver. Now retired, he has assumed an active role in fighting privatization.

The dirty little secret of the voucher movement is that most of them are claimed by well-to-do families whose children were already attending nonpublic schools. Vouchers are a subsidy for people who were already paying tuition at private schools

His post was distributed by Advocates for Public Education Policy.

A4PEP introduced his statement:

Vouchers aren’t winning because voters love them. In fact, they keep losing at the ballot box.

So what’s going on?

In a new post, A4PEP Vice-Chair Dr. Mike DeGuire points to a big driver: billionaire-funded networks that keep pushing “school choice” as a marketplace, where public dollars follow students into private (often religious) schools.

It’s not just messaging, either. These efforts are backed by think tanks, lobbying, and big political spending, and now there’s a new federal tax credit plan that could supercharge scholarship-granting organizations with even less transparency.

If you want the clearest breakdown we’ve seen of who’s behind this and what it means for public schools, read Mike’s full post:

Public education is a public promise. Let’s protect it.

Dr. Mike DeGuire wrote about why vouchers have been winning despite lack of public support.

He said:

One answer: Billionaires

Billionaires Charles Koch, Betsy Devos, Jeff Yass, William Dunn, Phillip Anschutz, Michael Bloomberg, Reed Hastings, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, John Arnold, and the Walton and Bradley families have led the movement for private school choice through support for both charters and vouchers for over 30 years. Their goal is to dismantle what they call the “government school system” and to change how public education is funded. They want to create a “marketplace of options” so families can use money (vouchers) from public funds to send their children to private, religious, or home schools.

The marketplace concept allows billionaires and their investors to make money through real estate, tech and service contracts, and gain significant tax benefits. For many, the goal is to support religious schools which then profit from enrollment growth.

How did billionaires get the public to go along with their privatization goals?

They used their vast resources to set up think tanks and lobbying organizations which employ hyperbolic messaging with misleading data to communicate that public schools are failing, insisting parents need resources (vouchers) to find alternative schooling options. When their voucher goals met with resistance in the 1990s, billionaires focused on spreading charter schools instead, especially in major cities. The charter movement created the false narrative that parents should leave their local public school instead of focusing on increased funding to meet changing student needs.

During Trump’s first term, and after the pandemic hit, vouchers started to reappear, especially in red states, as billionaires backed pro-voucher candidates in state legislatures and Congress to secure favorable voucher legislation. However, not a single taxpayer-funded voucher program in the United States has been approved by voters. Every state voucher program was enacted by legislators, often under heavy pressure from well-funded pro-voucher lobbying groups. Billionaires also funded groups who lobbied Congress to pass the federal tax credit voucher scheme in July that enlists all 50 states to join in the billionaire’s version of “education freedom for private school choice.”

How will they use the “historic” federal tax credit to spread more vouchers?

Taxpayers in states that opt in to the federal voucher scheme select from a list of scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) to reduce their tax liability by $1700 when they pay their 2027 taxes. Billionaires have been funding K-12 SGOs for over 25 years. They use the money raised to give scholarships for students to attend private schools. These SGOs will have billions more from individual taxpayers to use for the same purposes. Billionaire John Walton, son of Sam Walton of Wal-Mart and the richest family in the US, co-founded the nation’s two largest scholarships granting organizations, ACE Scholarships and Children’s Scholarship Fund. Most of their scholarships go to students who leave public schools to attend religious schools.

The federal voucher program includes no spending cap, and the billionaires have already tossed in over $10 million to market the program. The voucher advocates are pushing hard for regulations that slam the door on any approach that does not further the growth of this largely unregulated voucher program.

The path forward: opt out, speak up, organize

This isn’t a grassroots uprising. It’s a long-running, well-funded project, one that keeps losing at the ballot box, so it shifts strategy: different messaging, different vehicles, same end goal. If we want truly “free” public education, we can’t let billionaires and private interests redefine freedom as a shopping spree financed by public dollars.

The path forward is clear, even if it’s not flashy. Communities can press state leaders not to opt in. Parents and educators can demand transparency from scholarship-granting organizations and insist on real accountability for any program that touches public money. And all of us can keep returning to the basic truth: the best “choice” is a fully funded, welcoming neighborhood public school, one that serves every child, not just the children a private system chooses to accept.

Public education is a public promise. We should protect it like one.

Categories Billionaires, Education Industry, Privatization, Scandals, School Choice, Vouchers

Ohio: “Center for Christian Virtue” Starts Schools, Draws on Public Funds

By dianeravitch
March 11, 2026 //
2

Stephen Dyer, former state legislator, follows the money. As usual, in Ohio, public money is flowing to private organizations that are neither accountable nor effective. In this post, he assays the trail of public funds collected by the Center for Christian Virtue. The Ohio Constitution could not be clearer: no money for religious schools. The Ohio legislature treats the state constitution like an outdated relic.

Dyer writes on his blog Tenth Period:

The Center for Christian Virtue is making quite a play in Ohio’s education policy landscape. They are using a multimillion dollar Capital Square office to run the lobbying effort to continue the state’s unconstitutional private school tuition subsidies. They also are running a so-called $3.2 million Scholarship Granting Organization, which is really just a fancy way of funneling millions more of our tax dollars into unaccountable private schools.

And, potentially most harmful of all, they’re running an operation they call “school planting” where they use the unconstitutional private school tuition subsidy to kick-start “schools” inside of churches across Ohio.

They are now claiming to have done this with 15 “schools” so far, publicly naming four new ones that opened this school year and another 4 next school year. Here’s how they brag about it in their news release about this initiative:

“Through our innovative school-in-a-church model, God is expanding access to Christian education for families in every corner of the state. By leveraging existing church facilities, we help keep costs low, making it possible for more families to afford a high-quality, Christ-centered education.”

Let’s set aside the fact that having schools pop up in churches is an ancient practice and not in any way “innovative” (having American taxpayers subsidize these things is “innovative”, though).

Anyway, here’s the thing: a total of 25 kids in only 1 of these schools — Westside Preparatory, which is the shining example displayed on CCV’s education website — has ever been tested for proficiency in reading and math, with only 9 ever being deemed “proficient” in both1.

This performance reflects these kids’ scores on tests the schools gets to pick from scores of options allowed by the state.

Public schools, in contrast, do not get to pick their kids’ tests.

All taxpayers had to do for 9 private school kids to test proficient on tests the school picked was to unconstitutionally subsidize these schools by about $2 million.2

[Open the link to see the scores.]

But at least the schools’ scores are 51 percentage points worse last year than the previous year in Math. Not an awesome trend, by the way.

Quite a return, wouldn’t you say? I mean, considering that none of these kids ever attended a public school. I am deducing this because in the schools’ first year of existence, only kindergarteners and first graders are included in their enrollment counts.

And that’s it. That’s all we know about the quality of these 15 “schools.” Hence my quotation marks around the word “school”.
Because what these “schools” really seem to be are money makers for CCV so it can finance the elimination of public education.

This is why I call them the new White Hat.
For those who aren’t familiar with White Hat, it was the company run by David Brennan that made millions running Charter Schools in Ohio and simply flipped a small percentage of those profits into Republican campaign war chests with the goal of de-funding public schools and the teachers unions that backed Democrats.

CCV is running the same White Hat playbook — set up a bunch of bullshit shell corporations, siphon millions of public dollars from Ohio’s 1.5 million public school students, use a small percentage of that money to lobby Ohio legislators and governors (who are notoriously cheap to buy) who allow CCV to continue stealing that money from kids, then watch public school kids suffer from it all.

All in the name of Jesus — they call this a ministry even!

Because robbing money from poor kids in Columbus, Athens, Steubenville and Findlay is exactly what Christ would have done.
What CCV is doing to Ohio’s public school kids is blasphemy. Pure and simple.

But get this: Because CCV’s operation involves advocating for the state to shovel money to private schools, we have no idea how much of that largesse CCV is accumulating. We do know that CCV staff is making bank — again, just as Jesus intended.

Please open the link and finish reading this post. Once again, the people of Ohio are being ripped off by grifters.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Ohio, Privatization, School Choice

Joyce Vance: Will We Normalize ICE Brutality?

By dianeravitch
March 10, 2026 //
6

Joyce Vance is a former federal prosecutor. She is currently a contributor to CAFE, a blog where legal experts comment on current issues. Here, she expresses her concern about the use of federal force to occupy and terrorize American cities. Will we grow to accept the presence of masked, brutish federal agents in our cities?

She writes:

ICE may have left Minneapolis (or at least officials have said they are drawing down—“Border Czar” Tom Homan said over the weekend that a “small” federal security force would stay behind “for a short period of time”), but we cannot afford to forget what they did there. Even though this particular ICE surge was in Minnesota, it matters for all of us.

We cannot afford to forget Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and the other people and incidents, even, perhaps especially, those we do not have names or faces to attach to because of the sheer volume. When a government shoots and kills its own citizens—citizens exercising essential constitutional rights lawfully and in public, we must not forget. When that government lies about what happened, demonizes the victims, calls them terrorists, and opens an investigation into one of their family members instead of the law enforcement agent who pulled the trigger, we cannot afford to look away. If we do, if what happened in Minneapolis becomes just one more horror to be tossed with the rest of the trash at the end of its news cycle, we will forever lose a big, significant piece of what it means to be an American.

If you had federal agents killing American citizens in broad daylight on your 2026 bingo card, congratulations. Most of us didn’t. But shock and surprise are no reason to let what happened fade away, to push it aside because it’s too painful to stay focused on. If anything, Renee Good and Alex Pretti’s deaths reinforce the reasons we can’t forget that Trump militarized federal immigration enforcement agencies to terrorize people on the streets of an American city. A president who once said he could shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th Avenue without losing his followers’ support must not be permitted to turn that cynicism into prophecy.

This administration has shown no remorse for what it did in Minneapolis. It has defended and continues to defend the surge in court. ICE is part of the Department of Homeland Security. In a normal administration, regardless of party, you would have expected the Secretary to be outraged and demand a thorough investigation into what happened if personnel in one of the agencies she oversaw killed Americans in broad daylight. Instead, she called what happened self-defense and publicly defended the officers’ actions despite video of both events that showed it was not.

Two days after Customs and Border Patrol (CBP)  agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, Noem’s top adviser and unofficial chief of staff Corey Lewandowski, with whom she is rumored to have been having an affair for years, “messaged Trump’s pollster with a request: They needed to cut an ad to help her.” She sought support for herself, not accountability. Noem subsequently, according to reporting,  tried to fire her Coast Guard pilot for failing to move her blanket from one plane to another. She was forced to rehire him when she realized there was no one else to fly her plane home.

That’s the level of function at DHS these days. Meanwhile, the agent who shot Renee Good appears to be facing no serious consequences from the federal government, while Alex Pretti’s death is only under investigation because of unambiguous footage of the shooting showing he wasn’t a threat to anyone. There are no guarantees of a fair investigation or of a timely outcome. Nothing suggests Americans aren’t at risk of repetition in another time, and another place, if the president chooses to deploy his militarized law enforcement agency again.

Even for those who may not have caught on to this fact yet, we are all affected by this administration’s response to citizen dissent. In Maine, where ICE briefly surged in January in an effort that local reporting said was directed toward the state’s Somali community, an ICE agent filmed a woman who was observing his activity, and when she asked why, he told her, “Because we have a nice little database, and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.” Anyone who opposes this administration runs that risk.

It’s an administration that arrests first and validates later, which means it has swept up people with legal immigration status as well as American citizens, in the race to rack up statistics for its mass deportation plan. A CBS News report, citing internal government data, found that fewer  than 14% of those arrested by ICE in Trump’s first year back in office had violent criminal records. We can’t afford to ignore or forget about it. Memory is the key.

It is all about threats, intimidation, and the risk of violence—all conduct that Americans are deeply ingrained against expecting from their government. Late last week, the New York Times ran a storyabout DHS, reporting that it sent Google, Meta and other companies hundreds of subpoenas for information on accounts that track or comment on ICE. Whether there is actually an investigation, whether they get the information or not, putting a report like this in circulation is a great tactic for a regime that wants to frighten people, to get them to second-guess themselves before they post on social media or attend a rally. It’s not what democracies do. In a democracy, leaders tolerate voices that disagree with them, they don’t shoot them.

How dangerous of a stage are we at when a government starts killing its own citizens? I asked Princeton Professor Kim Scheppele, who studies comparative law and has expertise in Hungary, among other failing democracies, whether there is any precedent after Nazi Germany for a supposed democracy to use paramilitary forces to execute its own people in public. “Not in any country that pretends to be a democracy,” she told me. “That’s why the 20th-century dictators are different. And now so are we.”

Scheppele explained that the new autocrats, the ones who have come to power in the 21st Century, don’t kill their own citizens until very late in the process of autocratic consolidation, and even then, not in the type of direct, public confrontations that led to Good and Pretti’s deaths. In Russia, opponents of the regime started falling from windows about 10 years into Putin’s reign, but they were difficult to attribute directly to the Kremlin. Erdogan, in Turkey, only began killing his own citizens (that is, outside Kurdish areas) after the attempted coup in 2016. Scheppele concluded that “Since most of the new autocrats pretend to be democrats, this sort of state violence and killing we’ve seen since the start of the surge immigration campaigns is quite rare.”

Dictators try to silence opposition, whether it’s through intimidation or violence. The question our democracy faces now is whether we’re going to let that happen here.

Stay Informed, 
Joyce

CAFE Contributor Joyce Vance is a co-host of the CAFE Insider podcast and the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. She is also a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law and a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.

Categories Cruelty, Ethics, Extremism, Trump

An Iranian Dissident Woman Speaks Out

By dianeravitch
March 10, 2026 //
9

Margaret Hoover interviewed Iranian dissident Masih Alinejad about conditions for women in Iran. The interview was conducted in 2022 but it might as well have been conducted two weeks ago.

Alenijad is an outspoken critic of the mullahs’ repressive regime. She left Iran and moved to Brooklyn. Because she received death threats, she was transferred to a safe house.

She is highly critical of American leaders who thought they could cut a deal with the Iranian leaders. Like Biden, Obama, and Clinton.

I wish someone would interview her now.

Categories Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Ethics

National Parks Scrub Historically Accurate Signs and Exhibits that Offend Trump

By dianeravitch
March 10, 2026 //
4

In March 2025, Trump issued an executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” In reality, the order directed federal sites not to “restore truth and sanity,” but to replace them with lies and pablum. Park officials were told to remove signs and exhibits that “denigrated” American history and prominent Americans. Anything that cast events and people in U.S. history in a negative light was to be removed, even if the events depicted were factual and true.

What followed, of course, were efforts to scrub federal museums, parks, and historic sites of accurate information.

Fortunately, some federal employees built a website to catalog the reactions to the executive order. This article by Karin Brulliard and Brady Dennis in The Washington Post describes what happened.

At the Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monument in Mississippi, staff members asked the Trump administration to review an entire exhibit on the Black teen’s brutal 1955 killing by White men and his mother’s decision to publicize it — though the park’s staff warned that its removal would leave the site “completely devoid of interpretation.”

At Arches National Park in Utah, park managers wondered whether a sign about the damage that graffiti and invasive species leave on the iconic red rock landscape violates a Trump directive to focus solely on America’s natural beauty.

And at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park in West Virginia, staff members have asked federal officials to decide whether a document that describes an abolitionist’s murder by a mob might “denigrate the murderers.”

These displays and materials are among several hundred that managers have flagged at hundreds of national park locations since last summer in response to administration orders to scrub sites of “partisan ideology,” descriptions that “disparage” Americans, or materials that stray from a focus on the nation’s “beauty, abundance, or grandeur.” The submissions were compiled in an internal government database and reviewed by The Washington Post, which confirmed its authenticity with current federal employees.

The database does not make clear which of the plaques, maps, films and books ultimately will be removed or recast by the Interior Department, though some have already been axed. But the submissions provide a sweeping portrait of the scope of President Donald Trump’s bid to reconsider how national park sites address the historic legacy of racism and sexism, LGBTQ+ rights, climate change, and pollution — or whether to acknowledge them at all.

A group describing itself as “civil servants on the front lines” posted the database on two public websites Monday, saying in an attached note that it did so to show Americans how the administration is “trying to use your public lands to erase history and undermine science.”

Asked for comment, the Interior Department issued a statement Monday saying that the “draft, deliberative internal documents” in the database “are not a representation of final action taken.” The statement, from spokesperson Charlotte Taylor, asserted that the documents were “edited before being inappropriately and illegally released to the media in ways that misrepresented the status of this effort.”

The department did not respond to questions about the status or process for the reviews, nor about specific examples in the submissions.

The tone and content of the materials described and submitted to Interior by park managers vary widely, reflecting a mix of careful attempts to obey administration orders, confusion about what might violate them and, at times, apparent skepticism about the entire endeavor.

Staff members identified a brochure at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, in North Carolina, for “possible disparaging of a prominent American” because it mentions that aviator and onetime Smithsonian Institution secretary Samuel Langley failed to achieve flight. A park staffer at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in Arizona asks for clarification about whether displays on California condors’ return from the brink of extinction disparage hunters “or tell a success ??

Several submissions ask for reviews of book covers, book chapters and entire books on sale at gift shops, including “Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl,” an autobiography by abolitionist Harriet Jacobs.

“They are mostly on slavery and the black experience in Washington DC as well as a few on Lincoln’s assassination,” wrote a park official at Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site. “Not sure they all disparage historical figures, but they do cover dark periods in American history.”

Another inquiry came from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, where employees shared a list of books on the third president. “I am not sure if they really disparage Thomas Jefferson, but they do aknowledge [sic] that he had children with Sally Hemings,” the inquiry notes.

Bill Wade , executive director of the Association of National Park Rangers, said the breadth of the submissions revealed the many hours of work that Trump’s order imposed on already overextended park employees, who “probably should’ve been doing other things most of us believe would be more important.”

The exercise, Wade added, runs counter to the reasons many National Park Service employees gravitated toward their work in the first place. “Park rangers everywhere, and all park employees for that matter, have been passionate about telling true stories about history, and about science,” said Wade, a former superintendent of Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. “It’s a real affront to the values that rangers have.”

Others have embraced Trump’s effort, including Sen. Jim Banks (R-Indiana), who last summer wrote to top officials at Interior and the Park Service over concerns about “woke” projects he said appeared to violate the president’s order.

“The President’s executive order rightfully opposes a decades-long effort by our institutions to usurp American history with an ideology-based narrative that casts America’s founding and history in a negative light,” Banks wrote at the time.

In nearly a year since Trump’s order, National Park sites have responded by removing exhibits that address slavery and the challenges overcome by minority and marginalized groups, as well as signs about the science of climate change.

But there also has been sustained pushback.
Last month, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ordered the Trump administration to restore displays that discussed slavery at a site in Philadelphia where George Washington lived as president.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania compared the displays’ removal earlier this year to the mind control employed by the government in George Orwell’s novel “1984.”

Rufe’s ruling — issued on Presidents’ Day — granted an immediate injunction, requiring the reinstallation of 34 educational panels removed in January by the Park Service from a site at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia.

Two weeks ago, a coalition of scientific, preservation and historical groups sued the Trump administration over changes that already have been made, arguing that the removal of information about civil rights, climate change and other topics at multiple national parks amounts to illegal censorship.

That lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Massachusetts, argues that Interior officials ignored well-established principles and legal requirements when seeking to overhaul information presented at national parks.

Democratic members of Congress have also sharply criticized the effort, which they describe as a bid to whitewash the American story. “It is absurd that any president would go down this road of trying to retrofit history and culture in their own image instead of getting actual historians to tell us these stories,” said Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee.

The hundreds of submissions reviewed by The Post run the gamut, from signs and exhibits about slavery and the civil rights movement, to how the effects of climate change already are altering American landscapes, to how the nation remembers Indigenous people who inhabited lands long before there was a United States…

At Cape Hatteras, staff members asked whether information on the effect of light pollution on turtles might be “disparaging against park users.” The park also pointed out a Junior Ranger booklet’s mention of female pirates in the 17th and 18th centuries dressing like men to hide among ship crews. “Please review for appropriateness,” the park’s staff asked. At the Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality National Monument in Washington, staff members who surveyed bookshop items submitted pins, magnets and mugs that read: “Well-behaved women seldom make history.”

But many of the submissions involve even weightier topics in the nation’s history.
At Cane River Creole National Historical Park in Louisiana, park staff members flagged a planned exhibit about the history of the train depot that is used as the site’s visitor center. The depot was still segregated when it ended rail service in 1965, and the exhibit relied on extensive consultation and oral history collection with Black community members, according to a former park employee who worked on the project.

“For the community, it means for the first time having that story being told in an honest way — and actually just being told,” said the former employee, who was laid off from the Park Service last year.

It is now unclear whether the exhibit will be installed

At Harpers Ferry, site of abolitionist John Brown’s raid in 1859, an employee singled out a document that describes how a “mob murders” an abolitionist. “Does this denigrate the murderers?” the employee wrote. “We can reword to: ‘Abolitionist editor Elijah Lovejoy is murdered for his views.’”

A Civil War battlefield driving tour map was also flagged for its inclusion of direct quotes about the cause of the war from secession documents and Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy. The quotes cite slavery as the cause.

“True, but is this considered cherry picking and denigrating southerners?” the park’s staff wrote.
Those quotes were used to provide context and avoid downplaying the role of slavery in the Confederate rebellion, according to a former Harpers Ferry media specialist who inserted them.

Changing the documents and the map would amount to “pulling us back into a position of supporting White supremacy and supporting the ‘Lost Cause’ narrative and erasing the importance of African American history,” said the specialist, who retired last year and spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Along the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail, staffers highlighted signs and literature that discuss segregation in the South and how “non-violent civil rights demonstrators” crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge on “Bloody Sunday” in 1965 “were attacked” by armed officers.

“While these statements are historically accurate and supported by firsthand accounts,” staffers noted in the submissions, “they may be perceived as disparaging by individuals who are less familiar with the history of the Civil Rights Movement.”

Amid the numerous materials submitted for review at Arlington House, the Robert E. Lee Memorial, just across the Potomac River from the District, was a line in a Junior Ranger book that reads, “In 1829, Robert E. Lee promised to serve in the Army and protect the United States. In 1861, he broke his promise and fought for slavery.”

Staffers at Arches National Park raised questions about a sign devoted to the effects of human-caused climate change already visible in the park. “The park seeks guidance on whether this entire panel is within the scope of Secretary’s Order 3431 and should be covered or removed,” the submission reads.

In other places, it appears that park officials are wrestling with whether entire exhibits — or even entire sites — somehow conflict with Trump’s order to “focus on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people.

At the Mississippi site commemorating Till, the very place deals with one of the grimmest examples of racial violence in the United States.
Without this exhibit to share the difficult Till story, the new NPS site would be almost completely devoid of interpretation,” an employee notes in an inquiry shared with The Post. “The exhibit emphasizes ‘progress of the American people’ toward a better future.”

Wade said he was encouraged by the ruling that ordered the Trump administration to restore displays that discussed slavery at the site in Philadelphia. Wade’s group was also among the plaintiffs in the recently filed lawsuit seeking to halt the administration’s changes and deletions at national parks, saying they amount to censorship.

But if such legal avenues ultimately fail, Wade said, he suspects the push to alter the telling of history at many sites will continue.

“The impact is that the visitors are just not going to get true, accurate stories,” he said. “I just think the public ought to be really concerned about that.”

In some places, such as the preserved home of civil rights activist Medgar Evers or the Manzanar National Historic Site in California, where the U.S. government once incarcerated Japanese Americans during World War II, the entire site exists to commemorate painful moments in the nation’s history.

“If you take away the stories, you take away the purpose of the park itself,” Wade said.

Categories Bigotry, Censorship, Democracy, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, History, Ignorance, Lies, Propaganda, Racism

The Number of Billionaires Is Soaring, Thanks to Trump Tax Cuts!

By dianeravitch
March 9, 2026 //
19

In the midst of an article about Jackson Hole, Wyoming, a favorite retreat for the super-rich, we learned about the expansion of America’s billionaires.

That so much wealth could co-exist with so much poverty is no accident. It is a consequence of policy.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

A New York Times analysis shows the stunning velocity at which the fortunes of the 1 percent have increased across the country since President Trump first took office in 2017. The richest Americans saw their net worth soar 120 percent between 2017 and 2025, a colossal leap from the 45 percent growth they had seen over the previous nine years.

The number of U.S. billionaires jumped 50 percent by some estimates between 2017 and 2025, to more than 900 people.

More and more billionaires

The United States added new billionaires in 20 out of the last 25 years, as fortunes grew.

Source: New York Times analysis of the Forbes billionaires list.

Karl Russell/The New York Times

The list includes Elon Musk, who could become a trillionaire, and celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods, Bruce Springsteen and Jerry Seinfeld. But it also includes a number of people who are largely unknown to most Americans, people whose fortunes were lifted by investments and assets whose values have skyrocketed.

The minting of dozens of new billionaires occurred in the immediate wake of the 2017 tax cuts championed by Mr. Trump at the beginning of his first term, the nation’s biggest tax overhaul since 1986. The legislation, which slashed personal income taxes and doubled the estate tax exemption, was billed by Mr. Trump as “tax cuts for American families.” But the Times analysis, backed up by a range of new studies, shows that it disproportionately benefited wealthier taxpayers.

Most important, it cut the corporate tax rate and laid the groundwork for a surge in stock prices — creating a phenomenal accretion of wealth. The coronavirus pandemic intensified the dynamic. Tech prices soared as employees geared up to work at home and inflation tripled, weighing on the middle class and devastating the poor.

While the rich have been getting richer at a fairly steady pace over the years, the analysis shows that the net worths of those who were already billionaires experienced a pronounced shift after the tax cuts were signed into law, growing by 49 percent over eight years.

The irony in this significant u crease in billionaires is that it started with Trump’s tax cuts in 2017 and expanded with his tax cuts in 2025. And all the while, he was elected and re-elected by people who got the short end of the stick. MAGA was a front for the super-rich. It did nothing for Trump’s loyal base. He played them.

It worked.

Giving credit where it’s due: Andrew Tobias brought this article to my attention in his newsletter.

Categories Billionaires, Inequality
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »