
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
One legal advocacy group said the rule change "will be costly, cause chaos, and cut legal immigration."
The Trump administration on Thursday finalized sweeping new visa restrictions that immigration advocates and higher education professionals say will make it significantly more difficult for international students and journalists to study and work in the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said it is replacing the long-standing "duration of status" system—which allowed students to remain in the country as long as they complied with the terms of their visas—with fixed admission periods that generally cap student and exchange visitor stays at four years.
Foreign journalists, meanwhile, will see their visas limited to 240 days, while Chinese journalists will face an even shorter 90-day limit. Visa holders will have to apply for extensions if they need more time.
NEW: The Trump admin finalized a regulation which makes the largest changes to the student visa process in 50 years, along with changes to rules for exchange visitors and international journalists. 🧵on some of the most consequential changes set to go into effect in September.
[image or embed]
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) July 16, 2026 at 12:09 PM
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin claimed that “for nearly half a century, the outdated 'duration of status' system has compromised national security and created an environment ripe for immigration fraud."
"For decades, foreign students have been admitted into the US indefinitely, allowing thousands to abuse our immigration system by perpetually enrolling in courses to avoid having to leave the US," Mullin added. "By implementing clear, finite limits on these visas, the United States is reclaiming its ability to properly screen, vet, and monitor individuals within our borders."
However, Todd Schulte, president of the bipartisan political advocacy and lobbying group Fwd.US, warned that “these new restrictions will only make it harder for international students and researchers to complete their studies in the US and contribute their education to the US workforce after graduating."
"These changes will hurt America’s global competitiveness, hinder businesses’ ability to hire US-educated talent, impose significant and unnecessary costs on universities and students, and increase the workload for federal agencies already struggling with backlogs and delays," Schulte added. "This rule will create more bureaucratic backlogs and delays and help grind the legal immigration system to a halt.”
"Have these people no understanding of how life works?"
The American Immigration Lawyers Association said the rule change "will be costly, cause chaos, and cut legal immigration."
David Bier, the immigration studies director at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Reuters that "international students, many of whom will have spent years in the USA, will now have just 30 days to find an employer to sponsor them or immediately be turned into illegal immigrants. Have these people no understanding of how life works?"
Fanta Aw, executive director of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, said in an interview with The Washington Post that “DHS’ decision to end duration of status is a misguided and unnecessary policy shift that injects uncertainty, bureaucracy, and fear into a system that has long worked effectively."
To be clear, take the $1K that Trump wants to give newborn kids—I mean, why not? But never put another dime in an account like this.
I’m serious, and this is not just my disgust with everything Trump. There is no good reason for the overwhelming majority of people in the country to ever put a dollar in a Trump account for their kids.
To be clear, I’m not in favor of tax-sheltered accounts in general. They strike me mostly as a very inefficient way to accomplish public goals, in this case making education more affordable. The more efficient route would be to have more public funds go to support public colleges and community colleges.
The tax-sheltered account route also favors higher-income people. Over a quarter of households owe no income tax, meaning they would get no benefit whatsoever from putting money in a tax-sheltered account. Another 20 percent are in the 10 percent bracket, meaning the account would just save them just 10 cents on every dollar invested. By contrast, the highest income households save 37 cents on every dollar invested in a tax-sheltered account.
In addition, tax-sheltered accounts put a lot of money in the hands of the financial industry. Tens of billions of dollars go to the people and companies who administer these accounts, creating a pointless layer of wasteful bureaucracy.
To be fair, the Trump accounts limit fees to 0.1 percent of assets, far lower than is charged by many accounts. This is an important point. People can get low-cost funds in other accounts also. Stock index funds generally have the lowest fees, and most people would be wise to take advantage of them. People will tell you that they will beat the market, but most won’t, and you’ll just end up wasting money in higher fees and trading costs.
But that has nothing to do with individuals’ decisions on where to put their money. For better or worse, Trump accounts exist. The question is whether people will be helping their kids by putting money into them. And, as I said above, the answer for almost everyone is no.
The main reason is that we already have 529 accounts for the purpose of saving for a kid’s education. The big difference between the accounts for this purpose is that it is possible to withdraw money from a 529 account, if it’s needed, where it is not possible to withdraw money from a Trump account for any reason, until the kid turns 18.
People do pay a penalty for taking money out of a 529 early, but at least they can have access to it if they need it. And unexpected events do happen. People can lose a job, have serious medical expenses, or get divorced. These and other unanticipated situations can require people to dip into whatever savings they have. With a 529 plan, they can use the money if they really need it. With a Trump account, they are out of luck.
It is important to recognize that withdrawals for non-education purposes are fairly common. A recent study by Vanguard found that 2 percent of accounts had an unqualified withdrawal in an average year. If an account is open on average for 20 years, this would mean that 40 percent of accounts have an unqualified withdrawal. People don’t expect bad things to happen, but they do.
Also, since the penalty is based only on the earnings portion of the 529 plan, not the whole sum in the plan, in most cases it is likely to be small. Suppose someone pulls $5K out of a 529 plan, where earnings are currently 40 percent of the money in the plan. That means they would pay taxes on $2,000, plus a penalty of 10 percent. If they are in the 10 percent bracket, their taxes would be $200, and their penalty would $200. If they were in the zero bracket, say because they had lost their job, they would only pay the $200 penalty. That compares to being unable to touch their money at all in a Trump account. (The money in a 529 is not taxable at all if used for educational purposes. The earnings in a Trump account are taxable.)
It’s also worth mentioning that it’s not even possible to change asset allocations in a Trump account. Suppose your kid is 17, one year too young to make a withdrawal. If you’re worried there is an AI bubble likely to burst, and you would rather have your money in Treasury bonds, you’re out of luck. Trump accounts won’t let you make the switch; you have to go down with Elon Musk and the rest of the market.
The silliest argument given by proponents of Trump accounts is that they can be rolled over into an IRA to allow for lifelong wealth accumulation. So can the money in 529 accounts, up to a ceiling of $35,000.
The Trump gang makes a big issue of the $35,000 ceiling, but this is something only elite types with lots of money would care about. Very few people ever accumulate more than $35,000 in a 529 account, and the vast majority of people who do will find some education-related expense that would reduce the value of the account to less than $35,000. Remember, even food and housing can count as education-related expenses.
But let’s say someone ends up with an amount over $35,000 that they can’t use for education-related expenses. Suppose they have $40,000 that they want to roll over into an IRA. In this situation they would have to pay a 10 percent penalty on the amount over $35,000. That would be $500 on the $5,000 difference.
They would also have to pay taxes on the $5,000. The beneficiary is the one receiving the money, so they would be paying the tax. Since they are just beginning their working career, they likely have a relatively low income. This means they will almost certainly be in the 10 percent or 15 percent tax bracket, and quite possibly the zero bracket.
So, this is the bad scenario that Trump account proponents say it is important to avoid, and therefore skip a 529 and put your money in a Trump account instead? That seems pretty whacky, and why you need to fire your financial adviser if they suggest putting money in a Trump account.
To be clear, take the $1K that Trump wants to give newborn kids. It would be a much better use of tax dollars if we provided food and medical care to kids from low-income families than giving out $1K checks to millions of families that don’t need it. But you aren’t going to change the policy by turning down the money. If it bothers you, donate the money to a good cause, but do take the money and don’t ever put another penny in a Trump account.
Just as the founders of the country drew inspiration from European enlightenment thinkers, we too must now renew our own democracy by demanding our students and schools be supported.
July 4th, 2026 will be the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. One of the foundational documents of the United States, the declaration has been taught many ways: as America’s break up letter, as a rallying cry for freedom and as an example of the legal assertion of a right to rebellion—derived from common law and biblical teaching. Influenced by the Protestant reformation, the Great Awakening and enlightenment thinking, the Declaration is an example of the complexity of our founding and a reminder of the important work of educating for democracy.
Yet, many teachers feel like it’s getting more difficult to teach today, on the eve of the 250th. Just like in the era that gave us the “Spirit of ‘76,” teachers, who are striving to keep the spirit alive, must both stay rooted in local life and draw inspiration from Europe.
In 1776, local life in the rebellious colonies was much more defined by geographic dispersion. It took time for word to travel between the population hubs. Reading was essential to revolutionary activity and democratic participation as the written word could travel with greater reliability to all corners of the colonies, including the backwoods of the likes of New Hampshire, my home state.
It was a sign of the times when far off places like New Hampshire joined the struggle for independence, just as it is a sign today that teachers in Granite State feel the string of modern issues that for so long have been more acutely felt closer to urban population centers. Consequently, it bears reporting that Hampshire was recently hit by a series of newly proposed legislation aimed at destroying the bedrock of our democracy, our public school system. These new developments trace their way back to 2021 when the state saw the start of a transfer of public resources to private and religious schools with the enactment of a voucher program. That program then expanded over several years, quickly eliminating a cap that limited participation based on income, becoming a universal and unregulated giveaway.
Those celebrating the special anniversary year of our state and country would be remiss to not also honor the legacy that binds education to our experiment in self governance. This can be found in the written text of New Hampshire’s constitution as a call to provide for the general diffusion of knowledge among of the citizenry (the link above from the Education Law Center identifies similar constitutional clauses in states across the country).
It is this constitutional text that the state Supreme Court relied on as it issued important rulings clarifying the state's obligation to provide adequate funding to all public school students—something the state had historically resisted. New Hampshire is consistently at the bottom of the list in terms of state contribution to public schools, forcing an overreliance on local property tax.
Determined to subvert the court's ruling, the legislature has opted instead to launch a full-on assault on the public school system. One proposed bill would push a rapid consolidation of local school districts—something that would cut against the very local control that New Hampshire has lauded since it created its own state government in 1776.
Another bill tried to replace the power of locally elected school boards by shifting decision making away to publicly unaccountable boards by converting local public schools to charter schools. Diminishing local democratic decision making through conversions also opens the door to Charter Management Organizations (CMOs), which are privately held profit motivated companies that have been notorious actors in other places, including New Orleans. The fast pace of the potential law has many concerned that the measure is truly meant to seed confusion and destabilize the existing school system.
Here, I should note that according to most measures New Hampshire's schools rank in the top quintile in the nation despite the destructive policies of several extreme legislatures.
Yet, the pressure has been especially palpable on schools that historically are already stretched thin. Administrators in these districts have tried to navigate rushed new regulations and the ensuing confusion, as well as changes to the already limited state funding formula. One district was forced to take out a $4 million private loan to cover its operating budget rather than face mass staff layoffs. The state has offered what some call predatory lending to financially distressed districts—all while threatening state takeovers of the very places that they have refused to provide adequate funding, despite the ruling of multiple courts over decades.
Most of this will sound familiar to those who have followed the broader privatization movement. Efforts to privatize the schools of New Hampshire are a collection of ideas recycled from failed “experiments” in defunding educational opportunities for students across the country from Chicago to Los Angeles (and many in between). Similar policies have been pursued nationwide, sadly. These policies based on a neoliberal theory, propose to slash taxes and reduce services, commodifying education to a good, another product to be bought and sold.
The thing is, education is more than a good, it's for the common good. By this, I mean, we all benefit when young people become better learners and it is fundamental to our continued self-governance to have the next generation experienced in the arts of democratic life. We need students to develop discernment, practice reasoning and decision making and learn to collaborate with peers from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences.
Communities want quality public schools—and it’s time to rally around our community schools. Just as the founders of the country drew inspiration from European enlightenment thinkers, we too must now renew our own democracy by demanding our students and schools be supported.
To do so, we should redouble our investment in early childhood education, resource all schools to provide early interventions (a proven way to help students and a wise use of public funds over the long term as studies have shown the students who receive personalized support early in life are less likely to require intensive needs later in their educational lives). We must raise the status of the teaching profession; a career as a kindergarten teacher should be seen as equally as important as a doctor or lawyer. The professional status of teachers can vest us with classroom autonomy and respect for professional judgement. This contributes to school cultures of collective respect and responsibility and wellbeing.
Celebrating the 250th is about uplifting our democratic institutions—especially schools. While the private interests of a few have used dark money to fuel campaigns to defund our shared schools and shrink schools as common gathering places, too many well meaning folks have missed the point that the big money backers of school privatization grasp: providing proven policy examples at a small scale initially can be enough to grow the momentum needed to scale up and grow policy.
That’s why we need to be in touch with local educators, to support them, and to find ways to share what’s working at scale. It is that kind of resolve that makes democracy actionable and not just a wish. Don’t close your eyes to make a wish on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration, recommit to protecting our schools, the cradles of our democracy, with policies inspired to help all flourish.
“That’s government-sponsored religious favoritism—and the First Amendment strictly forbids it," said one critic.
As education officials in Texas ban hundreds of books that run afoul of their interpretation of Christian morality, the State Board of Education on Friday approved a required reading list that forces the state's more than 5 million public school students to read from the Bible.
The Republican-controlled SBOE voted 9-5 with one abstention to approve the list, which includes passages from the Book of Exodus as well as the Shepherd's Psalm and the myths of Adam and Eve and David and Goliath.
"We’re going to stop watering down American history. We’re going to teach the truth. Our nation was founded as a Christian nation, and Texas is a Christian state,” Republican board member Brandon Hall—who is also a youth pastor at Cavalry Baptist Church in Springtown—said during a Thursday press conference in Austin.
That "truth" omits or marginalizes climate change, US imperialism, women's history, the genocide of Indigenous peoples, slavery, and racism.
Evelyn Brooks, the only Republican SBOE member to vote against the required reading list, told CNN on Friday that she believes the board's move is "unconstitutional."
“Teachers need to have their autonomy," she said. "They’ve been selecting books for decades."
In 2023, Texas' Republican-controlled Legislature passed HB 1605, which mandated the creation of a K-12 required reading list and directed the Texas Education Agency to develop state-owned textbooks. Those texts, called Bluebonnet Learning, contain lessons on Christianity starting in kindergarten. The SBOE approved Bluebonnet Learning as an optional curriculum in late 2024 and is currently working to correct thousands of errors in the curriculum at a cost of over $8 million to Texas taxpayers.
The SBOE action comes amid a legal battle over SB 10, a law signed last year by Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott that requires public elementary and secondary schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. US District Judge Fred Biery, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, subsequently issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law. Texas families also sued to block the legislation. However, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton—who is running for US Senate—demanded that schools comply with the law.
Public schools "exist to educate students with diverse faith backgrounds, as well as those who adhere to no faith doctrine," the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) said Friday. "Public schools are not Sunday schools, and elected officials have no business using state power to elevate one religion above all others. A required reading list that overwhelmingly favors Christian texts while excluding the writings and literary traditions of other faiths, not to mention the perspectives of millions of nonreligious Americans, sends an unmistakable message about who belongs and who does not."
FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor asserted that “a mandatory public school reading list should never function as a Bible lesson."
"Texas is telling millions of children that one religion deserves the government’s seal of approval, while everyone else is an afterthought," she added. "That’s government-sponsored religious favoritism—and the First Amendment strictly forbids it.”
Rabbi Joshua Fixler at Congregation Emanu El in Houston told CNN Friday that "this list is full of Christian texts that are inappropriate for public school classrooms."
"As a rabbi and a parent of Jewish kids, I think it is vital that this board make a distinction between teaching about religion and teaching religion," he added. "This list will force teachers to cross that line."
Fort Worth high school teacher Chanea Bond told The Associated Press on Friday that the SBOE's required reading list is "very old and very white."
“It is very narrow and does not represent what classrooms in Texas look like,” she said. “Going through most of high school without ever having much value put into voices that sound like yours kind of sends a message that your voices aren’t valuable.”
"By moving special education from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services, the administration is taking us back to a dark period in American history."
The Trump administration accelerated its assault on the US Education Department on Tuesday by announcing that the agency's work defending civil rights and students with disabilities will be placed under the authority of other federal departments, a move that teachers, Democratic lawmakers, and advocacy organizations condemned as illegal and disastrous for vulnerable children.
Linda McMahon, the billionaire education secretary who has enthusiastically advanced the destruction of her own agency, announced the transfer of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services—which oversees the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—to the US Department of Health and Human Services, headed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Additionally, the Justice Department will oversee the work of the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, McMahon said, claiming the changes would "break down the bureaucratic barriers and strengthen the coordination of resources to improve programs that serve infants, toddlers, children, and adults."
Critics argued the moves would do the opposite, scattering crucial programs across departments that lack the expertise and resources to fulfill the education offices' mandates, ultimately depriving children and their families of support.
“Moving IDEA out of the Department of Education is not an administrative adjustment—it is an attack on the educational and civil rights foundation of the law," said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association. "It would drag us backward by treating disability as a medical issue instead of an educational right and by unraveling decades of progress. The Department of Education is the only federal agency with the expertise, infrastructure, and specialists needed to protect students’ rights and ensure they receive the services they are guaranteed."
"Relocating the Office for Civil Rights to the Department of Justice as part of this scheme would further erode federal oversight and endanger disability-rights enforcement nationwide," Pringle added.
The Arc of the United States, a nonprofit that advocates for the rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, said that "moving special education to HHS and civil rights enforcement to DOJ would split apart the offices responsible for making disability rights real in schools, leaving families chasing answers across the federal government instead of getting accountability from one education agency."
"Moving IDEA oversight into HHS pushes students with disabilities toward a medical model, where disability is treated as a diagnosis to manage instead of a natural part of human life," said Katy Neas, the group's CEO. "When that mindset drives education decisions, students are more likely to be segregated, underestimated, or treated as separate from the school community."
"It’s an outrageous betrayal that undoes decades of hard-won progress for students."
The changes that McMahon announced Tuesday are part of the Trump administration's effort to completely dismantle the Education Department, which cannot be legally abolished without congressional approval. The Washington Post noted that the newly targeted offices were among the last Education Department segments to "outsource major functions," underscoring that the administration's assault "has advanced far more than most observers predicted would be possible."
In addition to displacing agency functions, the Trump administration has gutted the Education Department's staff, firing nearly half of its workers in what opponents say is an obvious effort to decimate public education.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said the transfer of critical functions out of the Education Department is unlawful, "usurping the power of the purse while the Republican majority stands idly by, forfeiting their authority as a co-equal branch of government." DeLauro pointed to language in a 2026 appropriations measure enacted earlier this year that prohibits the Education Department from transferring responsibilities to other federal agencies without congressional approval.
“This is a disgraceful violation of the law," DeLauro said Tuesday. "By moving special education from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services, the administration is taking us back to a dark period in American history. One where individuals with disabilities were viewed not as whole persons deserving of an education, but as medical patients whose education is not a priority."
The top Democratic appropriator in the Senate, Patty Murray of Washington, warned that "the Trump administration is abandoning kids with disabilities and its most basic legal responsibility to protect the rights of every student in the classroom."
"Instead of helping kids get a great education, this administration is spending its time, energy, and taxpayer resources fixated on where employees sit and illegally trying to shutter the Department of Education," said Murray. "It’s an outrageous betrayal that undoes decades of hard-won progress for students."
The coalition leader behind the report called the figures "a warning that the global norms that once protected children are collapsing," and "the world is drifting toward a place where even the youngest are no longer off‑limits.”
From the Gaza Strip to Ukraine and beyond, violent attacks on students, teachers, and schools have surged in recent years, according to a report released Monday by an international coalition.
The report, titled "Education Under Attack 2026," documents at least 8,566 attacks on education and cases of military forces using educational facilities from the beginning of 2024 to the end of last year, a more than 40% increase from the previous two-year period.
"We believe the true increase is far higher," noted Felicity Pearce, lead researcher for the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA) report, in a statement. "Escalating conflict, shrinking humanitarian access, and widespread information blackouts mean many attacks are never reported."
The 2024-25 attacks harmed at least 10,600 students, educators, and other personnel across 83 countries, including 55 that are not in active conflict. GCPEA found the highest incidence in Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Haiti, Palestine, and Ukraine, while Cameroon, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Yemen had the greatest numbers of people harmed or killed.
"Cameroon continued to face overlapping security crises, which continued to heavily affect civilians in 2024-2025, marked by persistent violence in the Far North region and protracted armed conflict in the Northwest and Southwest regions," the report explains. GCPEA recorded at least 67 attacks on schools, 85 attacks on students and staff, and 11 reports of military use of educational facilities.
It's now been a decade since the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia signed peace accords, but GCPEA still identified at least 160 reports of attacks on educational facilities, 129 reports of attacks on students and personnel, and 107 reports of military use of schools.
In the DRC, as "armed conflict intensified" between the Rwandan Defense Force-backed March 23 Movement and the Congolese national armed forces—supported by Burundi's military and allied militias—there were at least 350 attacks on schools, 15 attacks on students and staff, and 313 cases of military use of facilities.
"Conflict in Ethiopia continued to impact access to education for millions of children," the publication states. GCPEA tracked around 100 attacks on schools and seven on students and personnel—though acknowledged monitoring and reporting challenges—as well as approximately 1,200 schools used for military purposes, a sharp increase from the previous period.
"As armed gangs in Haiti merged and gained control over more of the country, escalating violence included attacks on schools, school students, and staff, as well as the military use of schools, and disrupted education for over 1.2 million children," according to the report. Specifically, there were at least 339 attacks on schools, 55 attacks on students and staff, and 27 reports of military use of facilities.
In Myanmar, "as internal conflict intensified between the military junta that seized power in February 2021 and armed resistance groups," GCPEA tracked 212 attacks on schools, 18 attacks on students and personnel, and 84 military occupations.
As armed conflict between the Nigerian government and non-state armed groups continued during the reporting period, attacks on schools dropped slightly, to nine, while attacks on students and staff were consistent, at 14—but at least 90 people were killed or injured, and over 700 were abducted. There were at least five incidents of the military using schools.
"Israel continued to commit genocidal violence against the Palestinian population in Gaza," the report says, and there were increased attacks on schools, students, and teachers in both the coastal strip—where most educational buildings have been "severely damaged"—and the occupied West Bank. Across Palestine, GCPEA identified at least 620 attacks on schools, 2,400 attacks on students and staff, and 10 cases of the military use of educational facilities.
As Ukrainian forces continued to fight Russian invaders, GCPEA tracked more than 900 attacks on schools and at least one case of military use of a school. The report also points out that "1,611 schools had been damaged or destroyed since the start of the full-scale invasion, including at least 339 that had been completely destroyed," forcing 741,000 children to study in a hybrid format, and another 443,000 to learn entirely online.
In Yemen, "a fragile truce largely held through 2024 and 2025," but the continued battle among the internationally recognized government, Houthi forces, and regional actors meant there were still at least 16 attacks on schools, 62 attacks on students and staff, and 63 cases of military use of facilities.
Lisa Chung Bender, director of the GCPEA, told The Guardian that the report's findings "are a warning that the global norms that once protected children are collapsing."
"A warning that the world is drifting toward a place where even the youngest are no longer off‑limits," she said. "And a warning that if we do not hold the line now, we may never get it back."
The report urges support for the Safe Schools Declaration, and features recommendations for governments and civil society.
Its release follows the latest publication from the Explosive Weapons Monitor, which was released last week and documents at least 22,616 civilian fatalities from explosive weapons across 65 countries and territories last year. The monitor found 1,416 attacks on education in 2025, a 64% increase from 2024, and also highlighted Myanmar, Palestine, and Ukraine.
One Democratic lawmaker said the legislation "puts trans youth in harm's way and censors content that acknowledges trans people’s existence."
The Republican-controlled US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed legislation that critics warn would force public schools receiving federal funding to "out" transgender students to their parents without or without their consent, a policy that advocates warn could endanger many trans youth.
HR 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act—but dubbed the "Don't Say Trans" bill by some critics—was introduced by Reps. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and Burgess Owens (R-Utah) and passed by a vote of 217-198, with eight Democrats joining every Republican and one Independent present in voting for the legislation.
The bill—which faces an uncertain future in the Senate—requires federally funded elementary and middle schools to obtain parental consent before changing a student's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred names on school forms. It also mandates parental consent for a student's access to sex-based accommodations, such as locker rooms or bathrooms.
The legislation also prohibits federal elementary and secondary education funds from being used to advance concepts of so-called "gender ideology"—an inaccurate term that GLAAD says is "deployed by opponents to undermine and dehumanize transgender and nonbinary people"—in the classroom. The term features prominently in a day-one executive order signed by President Donald Trump in what critics say is an effort to effectively erase trans people from public existence.
"Too many schools are keeping parents in the dark about what’s happening in their own children’s classrooms, even going so far as to withhold critical information about their kids’ well-being and development," Walberg said.
"Families deserve honesty, not secrecy—especially when it comes to issues like gender identity," he continued. "Simply put, parents should never be the last to know—that’s not political, it’s common sense."
"Meanwhile, political and ideological agendas are being pushed through curriculum without parents’ knowledge or consent, sidelining the very people responsible for raising these children," Walberg added.
However, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—whose daughter is transgender—accused Republicans of "targeting trans kids with a bill that would require public schools to forcibly out students who want to use certain pronouns or accommodations, even if it would put them in danger."
"I'm a hell no," Jayapal said of the bill. "Trans kids deserve better."
Other House Democrats echoed Japayal's objections, with Rep. Robin Kelly of Illinois warning that the "Republicans’ extreme bill puts trans youth in harm's way and censors content that acknowledges trans people’s existence."
"I will always stand up for student safety, and I am voting NO," Kelly added.
Rep. Christian Menefee of Texas said that "instead of making sure America’s schools have the resources and support they need to ensure every student is given the same shot at success, Republicans are bringing a 'Don't Say Trans' bill to the floor today to forcibly out trans students, even if doing so would put students in immediate physical danger."
"Parents across the country want their children to learn in safe, affirming environments, without worrying about their kids being outed for their gender identity," he added. "I won’t vote to put those kids in danger."
Rep. Laura Friedman of California lamented: "This week, congressional Republicans could have spent their time working with us to help Americans afford groceries and pay their rent. Instead, they spent their time advancing a bill meant to demean trans youth."
"I voted no and urge them to focus on the real needs of Americans," Friedman added.
The eight Democrats who voted for the bill are: Reps. Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar of Texas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Cleo Fields of Louisiana, Laura Gillen of New York, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, and Eugene Vindman of Virginia.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) called HR 2616 part of "MAGA’s weird obsession with trans people."
"When the going gets tough for Republicans in Congress—when they have no answers to soaring gas prices from Trump’s illegal war with Iran, rampant corruption, or spiking health premiums—they can’t help but fall back on their favorite strategy: fearmongering," HRC's Jennifer Pike Bailey wrote on Tuesday. "And unfortunately, the transgender community is still the scapegoat du jour."
"Policies that denigrate trans youth don’t succeed in erasing these students, they just make their lives immeasurably harder," she continued. "It’s the job of schools to keep youth safe. And as we’ve seen, LGBTQ+ students are in physical danger when harmful policies are implemented. Recent FBI data shows that in states that have passed these types of laws, anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes in schools have quadrupled."
"Opponents of LGBTQ+ equality are creating a lot of noise, and the only way to stop them is to be louder," Pike Bailey stressed. "We need phone calls, emails, letters to every member of Congress telling them to stop these attacks. And then we need to show up at the ballot box."
BREAKING: The House of Representatives just voted to require teachers to forcibly out transgender youth against their will.Censoring "gender ideology" does nothing to advance the basic promise that every child deserves the same opportunity to thrive, and that includes transgender students.
— ACLU (@aclu.org) May 20, 2026 at 2:32 PM
Tyler Hack, executive director of the trans political advocacy group Christopher Street Project, said in a statement that “HR 2616 is yet another escalation in Republicans’ sick obsession with criminalizing queer people and trans youth."
"This ‘Don’t Say Trans’ bill does not protect kids—it is government-mandated forced outing," Hack added. "Mandating that teachers act as agents of the state and out their own students is not protection; it’s cruelty."
According to the Trans Legislation Tracker, "an independent research organization tracking bills that impact trans and gender-diverse people across the United States," there are currently 778 state-level and 126 national bills under consideration "that would negatively impact" targeted people.
One of the most recently approved bills, signed into law Friday by Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, forces trans and nonbinary students who need to use public school restrooms to go outside to porta-potties. LGBTQ Nation's Greg Owen slammed the law as a "latter-day 'separate but equal' attack on trans rights."
The Campaign for Southern Equality (CSE) said that “this bill will do nothing to make our schools safer."
"Rather," CSE added, "it will make using the bathroom a difficult and even dangerous experience for trans and nonbinary youth, who are extremely likely to be bullied and harassed when using the bathroom."
How do we stop this war? How do we redirect the money being wasted into the schools and health centers, bike lanes and sustainable-energy infrastructures that we all so desperately need?
Guns or butter. Butter or guns. Can we have both? If not, which should come first? Consider it one of those chicken-and-egg conundrums of modern society.
“Guns” is the stand-in for a well-funded military and “butter” for all the human goods, comforts, and needs of a society.
Economists, politicians, and generals have long considered the balance of guns and butter. Wage too many wars, produce too many arms, and there won’t be enough money to keep a nation decently fed and comfortable. Produce too many consumer goods, meet everyone’s needs, and a nation might find itself ill-prepared and vulnerable in the face of a possible attack or even invasion. Everyone from Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has had something to say about the balance of guns and butter (or, more likely, the lack of it).
No surprise, but I like butter and don’t like guns. I have long been attracted to the graphics produced by groups like the National Priorities Project (NPP) and Brown University’s Costs of War Project that dramatize the opportunity costs of war investment in the United States. At some point, one of those groups created a pen that had a long scroll on a pull-out flap inside it. At parties, as you were discussing the military budget, you could take out that pen and unfurl a long bar graph comparing US military spending to the budgets for education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Neat trick, right?
Every war is bad, stupid, and represents a colossal failure of the imagination, but this one, with the Trump trademark on it, should be considered the ur-war to oppose, resist, and refuse to pay for.
These days, NPP has a new factsheet that offers a breakdown of how the cost (so far) of President Donald Trump’s Iran “escapade” could have been so much better spent:
Those numbers are based on the Pentagon’s request for $200 billion in supplemental funding for the Iran war effort. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was on Capitol Hill on April 30, supporting a lowball estimate of the war costs as a mere $25 billion (and worth every dollar!) and asking for support for an inconceivable $1.5 trillion for Trump’s war machine in fiscal year 2027. Guns vs. Butter? More like guns force-fed foie gras and caviar and sautéed in the world’s most expensive butter.
If I ever got a tattoo, it would probably be of this line from President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1953 “Chance for Peace” speech: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
Eisenhower gave that speech 73 years ago (even as military budgets increased significantly while he was president) and yet the words ring truer than ever today. In reality, I’m unlikely to get a first tattoo at the age of 52, but I did see all of this up close and personal a couple of weeks ago at my Connecticut town’s school board meeting.
For months, school board members had been ringing an alarm bell about their budget. After years of scrimping and shaving, layoffs and early retirement packages, they were no longer able to economize their way to a balanced budget, and so were considering a “nuclear option”: closing one of our local schools.
Community members rallied, testified, and harangued. Busloads of kids joined our superintendent at the state capitol to ask for more support for our schools. For the last two months, everyone in my neighborhood has been talking about this, and on a Monday night a few weeks ago, the school board held a public meeting to make an ultimate decision about what to do.
I drove there over streets riddled with potholes, past new luxury apartments built as “workforce housing” for the engineers at General Dynamics Electric Boat, where a new class of nuclear submarines (12 boats for $132 billion) is now being designed. Those $2,200-a-month studio apartments overlook a gas station, train tracks, and a low block of struggling businesses in a flood zone.
The school budget gap (more than $7 million) is there for all the usual reasons, made more extreme because we’re living through what, in the age of President Donald J. Trump, can only be considered the cratering of imperial America globally and the volume is up to 11 on everything. In these years, the line items for staff health insurance, building utilities, and a host of other costs have skyrocketed. The contributions from the state of Connecticut aren’t even close to keeping pace. The whole enterprise is built on the backs of local property owners, and our taxes are already far too high.
The place most likely to be shuttered was CB Jennings School, right up the road from my house, which has (for the rest of this school year, anyway) 338 students. All but 30 of those students qualify for free or reduced-fare lunches, meaning they come from low-income households. The school population includes 149 “multi-language learners” and 66 special-education students.
The 338 kids there would be divided between the other two elementary schools in our neighborhood. The fifth graders would all go to the local middle school (which itself was to be consolidated from two buildings into one) and the eighth graders to the local high school.
Teachers and custodians, principals and paraprofessional educators, social workers and secretaries will all be moved around, too. Routines will be broken, friendships and collegial collaborations disrupted, teaching teams split up. There will be a great jostling for parking spaces, offices with windows, and classrooms that face out of (or into) the sun. September will be stressful indeed and no one is happy.
Who bears the brunt of all this disorder? The answer: the kids who pay no taxes and make no policies. The little ones who are already deemed behind when they show up for kindergarten and need all the help the professionals there can give them. The tween ones who just want to see their friends, show off their new braids, learn to play the trumpet, and get first place in the spelling bee. The older ones who need the breakfast, lunch, and snacks that are served at school. The ones who bring the light and the joy of learning with them every day.
The lives of those little ones and their slightly bigger siblings are all soon going to be subjected to massive disruptions.
Of course, those “massive disruptions” are only so in relative terms. They’re but a minor hiccup compared to what’s happening in the lives of children throughout Iran during President Trump’s war on their country.
I cry about the war against Iran every day. (Truly!) The terror and the horror buzz through my head at the weirdest times: as I run errands, work in my garden, perform my school-crossing guard duties, and greet my young walkers. All this daily predictability and precious stability, the gorgeous ho-hum of the daily grind that has been stolen from the people of Iran by our war.
I look at pictures of Iranians cleaning up around buildings reduced to rubble and trying to go about their lives amid the catastrophe and I’m filled with awe. How would I ever begin again after surviving a rocket attack? Would I be able to extract the broom from the wreckage or ever brew tea again?
I tried to put such images aside when I went into the school board meeting that fateful night. When it was my turn to speak, I had three points to make—one minor, one secondhand, and one massive. I was nervous. My first point was easy. I argued that the school at the edge of the city should close instead of Jennings, which is more centrally located. My second point was awkward. My 12-year-old had written a speech, but then refused to read it and was whispering contradictory instructions to me as I got up for my turn to speak.
Finally, I got to my third point. Facing a semicircle of board members, I tried to channel the gravitas of President Eisenhower by pointing out that the Trump White House began its war against Iran by hitting a primary school with a Tomahawk cruise missile and killing 165 civilians, most of them schoolgirls. And I pointed out that decisions like the one to start a war with Iran ripple all the way to our coastline—destabilizing our local world and stealing from our kids, too. Closing an elementary school or having a massive budget hole are not our only two options, I said. We could instead be living in a society that prioritizes keeping elementary schools open and fully funded instead of bombing schools 6,700 miles away.
I tried not to think about the room full of parents and teachers behind me, but I still felt uncomfortably out on a limb making my geopolitical points during our local school board meeting. Despite my doubts, however, I continued, noting that between February 28—when my country started that terrible, illegal war—and March 27, the United States had fired 850 Tomahawk missiles at targets in Iran. And mind you, each one of those missiles comes at a cost to taxpayers of more than $3 million.
My three minutes of time were running out, so I rushed through the next part, mentioning that our senator, Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), estimated at the beginning of April that Trump’s war is now costing US taxpayers $1 billion dollars a day! And that’s before we factor in the long-term economic consequences of oil and gas price rises, disruptions to the global supply chain, and the cratering of my country’s already teetering standing globally.
I finished up by saying that we all have to work so much harder to stop this war as well as fund our schools and that the two were connected. This budget gap would be a difficult dilemma under the best of circumstances, but against the backdrop of war and calamity, it feels indicative of a much deeper problem than a few-million-dollar local budget holes. As I concluded. I made eye contact with the school board members and thanked them for their time.
Making my way back to my seat, I noticed that I was a little sweaty and that my hands were trembling. Why was I so nervous? Why was that so hard?
Eisenhower’s speech is a rhetorical master class, well worth revisiting in this age of imperial fiat by tweet. Ike went on to intone:
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities…. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
After some formalities and hearing from a handful more people, the school board voted to shutter the CB Jennings Elementary School, a remarkably modern school in the heart of our city with a new playground and a beautiful library. The vote was unanimous. The board members were sad but resigned. It was treated as an inevitable but unfortunate outcome or even as a forward-looking, resolute action. They were “doing something” in the face of a huge budget gap.
And indeed, the school budget will be back in the black—for now—once a $1.4 million shortfall is settled by cutting more positions, shaving costs, and looking for grants. Meanwhile, the local schools that remain are indeed closer to a balanced budget (at least until utility costs spike even higher and yet more global war-making costs hit home in this country).
The cost of the war against Iran is just one reason to be against it. The wanton violence, the indiscriminate death dealing, the gold-plated hubris, and the gargantuan stupidity of Trump and crew, as well as the massive long-term impacts of the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, are something to try to take in.
Every war is bad, stupid, and represents a colossal failure of the imagination, but this one, with the Trump trademark on it, should be considered the ur-war to oppose, resist, and refuse to pay for. And sitting in that makeshift meeting room of the New London Board of Education, I felt like a tightly wound, somewhat muted Cassandra, requesting that people who are probably against the war, too, somehow consider it part of the reason we are being called upon to close a school and reduce the quality of our kids’ education.
We have a well-worn poster in the back hallway of our house. It’s an image of kids playing on a metal jungle gym alongside the words: “It will be a great day, when our schools get all the money they need, and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.”
A bake sale to buy a bomber? A car wash to get a Tomahawk? A dime drive for the next generation of nuclear submarines? This administration’s officials aren’t even pretending to enlist the public in support of their latest war, nor did they even try to get Congress to rubber-stamp it. They care that little for democracy, the rule of law, or even our hearts and minds. This White House grows fat on our outrage, our protest gestures, and our well-mannered critiques. They are printing money and telling lies in a frenzy of impunity that will (hopefully) finally be checked by the November elections. But there is so much violence and scapegoating and scaremongering coming out of Donald Trump’s White House and his Florida compound that many people are checking out on all of it just to carry on with their lives. But nothing now is NORMAL and we can’t allow ourselves to normalize any of it.
How do we stop this war? How do we redirect the money being wasted into the schools and health centers, bike lanes and sustainable-energy infrastructures that we all so desperately need? How do we take care of those victimized, maimed, and orphaned by our military? How do we take care of those rendered homeless, stateless, limbless by our wars?
The answer: We do something to protest, undermine, and challenge militarism every day. We work to connect those faraway wars, framed as invisible or normal or too complicated for us to grasp, to our everyday lives. We make all the awkward speeches we can. We hold up homemade antiwar signs. We refuse to pay for the wars we oppose. We continue to demand that butter, not guns, schools, not heavy bombers, homes, not destroyers be the focus of our lives.
“This government is determined to defund public education,” said one protester.
Tens of thousands of Argentines took to the streets on Tuesday to protest against cuts to public universities championed by right-wing President Javier Milei.
As reported by The Associated Press, demonstrators in Buenos Aires marched on the Plaza de Mayo toward the Casa Rosada to demand the government implement funding for public universities that was passed by Congress last year but that Milei's administration is challenging in court.
The AP reported that university professors' salaries have declined by roughly one-third since Milei came to power in 2023 due to the rising cost of living in the country, and education unions have rejected the government's proposals for marginal funding increases as woefully insufficient.
A report from DW noted that "public university budgets been slashed by 40% since 2023 when Milei took power."
Sol Muñíz, a law student at the University of Buenos Aires, told the AP that Milei's cuts to the education system aren't about saving the government money, but are part of a broader ideological project.
“It’s very clear this government is determined to defund public education,” said Muñíz. “University is a source of pride for us. It is the best thing we have.”
Student Renata Lopez said in an interview with Agence France-Presse that Milei's attacks on education reminded her of the society depicted in Ray Bradbury's classic book Fahrenheit 451, in which government agents systematically burned their citizens' books.
"Defunding education isn't something alien, it isn't dystopian," said Lopez. "It's something that's happening."
A demonstrator identified only as Marcelo, a student at the University of Quilmes, told El País that he was demonstrating to "defend our public university, which isn’t a privilege but a right of all Argentinians."
According to a report from Bloomberg earlier this month, Milei's popularity in Argentina has been sinking in recent months, as his government has been beset by corruption scandals and economic setbacks that have harmed the image he has tried to cultivate as an anti-establishment reformer.
One expert warned that removing works on activism and social movements erodes the ability of marginalized communities "to take action amid rising authoritarian tactics by our government and attacks on free speech."
As President Donald Trump returned to the White House in the middle of the 2024-25 academic year and swiftly pursued increasingly authoritarian policies, there was "an embrace of anti-intellectualism" within the book-banning movement targeting US public schools and classrooms.
That embrace is detailed in "Facts & Fiction: Stories Stripped Away By Book Bans," an annual report released Thursday by PEN America, a nonprofit that promotes the protection of free expression through the advancement of human rights and literature.
The group found that from July 2024 to last June, 3,743 unique titles were removed from school libraries and classrooms nationwide—and 1,102 of them were "educational or informational books for young people—textbooks or reference texts on a wide range of subjects, history books, biographies, and autobiographies."
Although the majority of banned titles were still fiction, such as Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, the share of "fiction titles dropped from 85% to 69% of all banned titles, while nonfiction rose from 14% to a startling 29% of all banned titles," according to the analysis.
"This marked impact on books anchored in scientific and historic facts, real events, and real people represents something new and distinctive about the trajectory of book bans in public schools," the report states. "As nonfiction titles are not always the targets of efforts to remove books, that books on ancient Egypt, the digestive system, and self-help for teens, to name a few examples, are impacted by censorship signals an alarming spread of book bans that ignore the educational value of texts and books."
Targeted "nonfiction titles are wide-ranging," the report notes, "from memoirs such as Night by Elie Wiesel to biographies such as RuPaul by Maria Isabel Sánchez Vegara, alongside historical and educational or informational books such as Aztec, Inca & Maya by Elizabeth Baquedano and Challenges for LGBTQ Teens by Martha Lundin."
Flagging this "embrace of anti-intellectualism" in a statement about the new report, Kasey Meehan, director of PEN America's Freedom to Read program, said that "it is another example of how censorship sweeps broadly, leading to removals of all kinds of books, in its efforts to sow fear and distrust in our public education system."
Like the previous academic year, "realistic/contemporary and dystopia/sci-fi/fantasy remain the dominant genres banned," the publication highlights. "But of note, educational/informational titles grew from 5% of all titles in 2023-24 to 13% of total titles banned in 2024-25, or nearly 500 unique titles."
Among the nonfiction titles banned, "52% contained themes of activism and social movements, the most commonly banned topic within nonfiction titles," the report says. "Whether #WomensMarch: Insisting on Equality by Rebecca Felix or IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All by Chelsea Johnson, LaToya Council, and Carolyn Choi, and illustrated by Ashley Seil Smith, this literature is crucial in the education of young people. These books can encourage readers to challenge the status quo and resist injustice."
Freedom to Read program assistant and report co-author Yuliana Tamayo Latorre said that removing books on these topics "silences the voices of marginalized communities and erode[s] their ability to take action amid rising authoritarian tactics by our government and attacks on free speech."
The most common theme across all banned books was nonsexual violence. This was a theme in 57% of the targeted titles, and they addressed topics including "war, gun violence, natural disasters, domestic violence, human trafficking, slavery and genocide, physical fighting, and more."
Other key themes included death and grief (48%), empowerment and self-esteem (39%), LGBTQ+ topics and metaphors (36%), consensual sexual experiences (34%), mental health disorders (29%), verbal or emotional abuse (28%), and substance use and/or abuse (27%).
There was an increase in banned titles with themes of empowerment and self-esteem, up from 31% in 2023-24.
"Fictional titles with themes of empowerment include Flor Fights Back: A Stonewall Riots Survival Story by Joy Michael Ellison and illustrated by Francesca Ficorilli, and The Moon Within by Aida Salazar," the report says. "To remove these books from classroom and library shelves means revoking access to books that students may rely on for personal and emotional development."
There is an entire section of the report about "erasing people" that examines trends in the identities of characters in banned books. Of all the targeted titles, 44% featured people of color, 39% had LGBTQ+ characters, 19% included transgender or genderqueer individuals, and 10% involved those who are neurodivergent or disabled.
Trump and other leading Republicans have embraced and advanced campaigns against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). PEN America acknowledged that such efforts "have contributed to restrictions and removals on books with people of color and mirror efforts to suppress curriculum on Indigenous history, Black history, Asian American and Pacific Islander stories, and Latine and Hispanic contributions."
Another section of the report addresses a major "discrepancy between the titles impacted by book bans and the justifications made to ban books. Book banners have long cited 'pornography' and 'sexually explicit' material in literature to justify book challenges. Claims that these books contain 'explicit' or 'obscene' content grossly misrepresent the materials."
That section points out that 19% of last year's banned titles contained sexual violence—and "according to RAINN, 1 in 9 girls and 1 in 20 boys under 18 experience sexual abuse or assault. With so many of these titles banned since 2021, it is possible that some young people who have experienced sexual violence no longer have access to books that could help them."
"Books containing experiences of sexual violence include The Nickel Boys by Colson Whitehead, winner of the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, set in a 1960s Southern juvenile reform school, and Laurie Halse Anderson's memoir Shout, a call to action for sexual abuse and trauma survivors in the wake of the #MeToo movement," according to PEN America.
The group's report came just a few weeks after a similar annual publication from the American Library Association, which details challenges to at least 4,235 unique titles in 2025, resulting in bans on at least 5,668 books and restrictions on another 920 works.
"In 2025, book bans were not sparked by concerned parents, and they were not the result of local grassroots efforts," noted Sarah Lamdan, executive director of the association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. “They were part of a well-funded, politically driven campaign to suppress the stories and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals and communities."