5
#000000
#FFFFFF
education
Who Will Govern Humanity's New Cognitive Infrastructure?
Because AI does not recognize national borders, its governance cannot remain confined within them.
Aug 02, 2026
Humanity faces no shortage of challenges. Wars continue to claim lives, climate change threatens the stability of our ecosystems, and growing economic inequality undermines social cohesion. Now another transformative force has entered the global stage: artificial intelligence.
Unlike previous technological revolutions, AI is not simply another tool. It has the potential to reshape economies, education, science, healthcare, communication, and political decision-making. Properly governed, it could become one of humanity’s greatest allies in addressing the crises we already face. Poorly governed, it could deepen inequality, intensify geopolitical rivalry, and create entirely new existential risks.
This is why governments, scientists, and international organizations are increasingly debating not only how AI should be developed, but who should govern it.
A remarkable convergence is emerging across very different parts of the world. Despite profound political and cultural differences, major international initiatives increasingly describe AI as a technology whose significance extends far beyond commercial innovation.
At the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi in February 2026, participating nations adopted the New Delhi Declaration on AI Impact, calling for human-centered, inclusive, and accessible artificial intelligence guided by the principle of Sarvajan Hitaya, Sarvajan Sukhaya—”Welfare for all, Happiness for all.”
Only months later, at the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed an international AI governance framework based on four principles: openness and shared benefit; security and meaningful human control; inclusion through learning among civilizations; and solidarity through multilateral governance. China increasingly presents AI not merely as an industry, but as foundational infrastructure capable of shaping civilization itself.
A third initiative emerged from a very different direction. On July 16, more than 200 Nobel laureates, scientists, diplomats, and global leaders signed the Rome Declaration, calling simultaneously for a coordinated slowdown in the development of frontier AI and the verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. Their concern is that humanity is approaching two technological frontiers whose interaction could prove catastrophic.
That concern was captured during the Rome conference, organized by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), the Global Nobel Assembly, and the Vatican. In an interview afterward, former IPPNW President Dr. Ira Helfand summarized the challenge in six words:”Don’t Let AI Get the Bomb.”
The slogan captures perhaps today’s most urgent AI governance challenge: preventing artificial intelligence from becoming integrated into nuclear command-and-control systems. Delegates warned that combining autonomous decision-making with nuclear weapons would dramatically increase the risk of accidental or unintended nuclear war.
The United States, meanwhile, has largely approached AI through three priorities: maintaining technological leadership, fostering commercial innovation, and strengthening national security. This strategy has fueled extraordinary investment and rapid technological progress, but it also raises an important question: Can competition among corporations and geopolitical rivals coexist with the international cooperation required to govern a technology that transcends national borders?
Taken together, these initiatives reveal something remarkable. India emphasizes human welfare, China stresses multilateral coordination, the Rome Declaration warns of existential risk, and the United States prioritizes innovation and strategic leadership. Although they differ substantially in emphasis, each recognizes that artificial intelligence has become too consequential to be treated as merely another commercial technology.
Yet none fully answers the central political question. If AI is becoming a global cognitive infrastructure, who should legitimately determine the rules under which it develops? Should they be negotiated primarily among governments? Set by technology companies? Driven by military priorities? Or should the people whose lives will be transformed by these systems have a meaningful voice in shaping them?
The economic trajectory of AI also remains uncertain. Hundreds of billions of dollars are flowing into chips, data centers, and computing infrastructure, while predictions of rapid, large-scale job displacement remain largely speculative. Similar forecasts accompanied earlier technological revolutions—from the internet to autonomous vehicles—yet history suggests that technological transformation often unfolds more gradually, and in less predictable ways, than initial expectations.
History also reminds us that foundational technologies rarely develop along a single path. During the early internet era, proprietary systems appeared poised to dominate. Yet open-source software, especially Linux, ultimately became the backbone of much of the world’s digital infrastructure. AI may evolve similarly, with proprietary and open-source models coexisting and competing for influence.
The central question, therefore, is not simply who will build the most powerful AI, but who will establish the principles governing humanity’s emerging cognitive infrastructure.
Roads shape how people move. Electrical grids shape how societies generate and distribute energy. The internet transformed how humanity exchanges information. Artificial intelligence may become the infrastructure through which humanity increasingly learns, creates, communicates, and even makes collective decisions. If that is the case, the challenge before us is no longer merely technological. It is ethical, political, and civilizational.
Every major infrastructure eventually required public institutions, shared rules, and democratic accountability because its effects extended far beyond its original creators. A global cognitive infrastructure should be no different. Because AI does not recognize national borders, its governance cannot remain confined within them.
This may become humanity’s first truly global democratic challenge. Will the rules be written primarily by governments, military establishments, and technology corporations? Or will they emerge through meaningful participation by scientists, educators, workers, artists, civil society organizations, and citizens across every continent?
Just as previous generations fought to establish human rights, democratic institutions, and international law, ours may be called upon to establish the principles that govern intelligence itself. Those principles should rest on human dignity, transparency, shared knowledge, international cooperation, and a commitment to the well-being of all humanity.
The question is no longer simply how we regulate artificial intelligence. It is who will govern the cognitive infrastructure through which humanity increasingly exercises its collective intelligence. The answer will shape not only the future of AI, but the future of civilization itself.
This article was first published on Pressenza and is also available in Spanish.
Keep Reading
Show Less
The Cockroach Movement Is Reinvigorating Democracy in India
The protests have yet to produce lasting institutional change, yet they have already demonstrated the capacity of young people to organize and exercise self-determination over their own political future.
Aug 01, 2026
Through a meme and a movement, Indian students have once again mobilized, this time in response to Chief Justice Surya Kant’s comparison of unemployed youth to “cockroaches” and “parasites” attacking the system. This remark led to the creation of the Cockroach Janta Party, or CJP, a mass-scale satirical movement with a mission to amplify the “voice of the lazy & unemployed.”
The political movement was fueled by compounding grievances. The precipitating factor was the leak of a medical entrance exam paper and irregularities in the government’s on-screen marking system forced millions of students to retake exams. But discontent has been building up for some time because of surging unemployment rates and a deepening disillusionment with the government. Student suicides associated with increasing academic pressure have reached as many as 13,000 a year.
Matters escalated further when hunger-striking activist Sonam Wangchuk was forcibly removed from a student protest site in Delhi and hospitalized by authorities. Tear gas and baton charges on student protesters catalyzed a countrywide youth uprising that would culminate in the resignation last week of the Modi government’s education minister.
Apart from material grievance, the student movement was ignited by what philosopher Axel Honneth argues is a form of moral indignation. Widespread feelings of injustice have changed the nature of emancipatory struggles from rational economic interests to ones that are personal and emotional. Framing students as parasites through dehumanizing language, rather than as citizens facing systemic and institutional barriers, strips them of political dignity and represents them as inferior and shameful in addition to diverting attention from the state’s own policy failures.
Region-Wide Discontent
Across South Asia, contemporaneous youth-led, digitally organized uprisings have taken place in quick succession. Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya protest in 2022 forced the resignation of both the president and the prime minister. Bangladesh’s student-led movement in 2024 against a quota system in government jobs, compounded by rising authoritarianism, led to the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina after 15 years in power. And in Nepal, a country where nearly 56% of the population is under 30, a generation disproportionately affected by economic precarity and a housing crisis, a Gen Z protest in 2025 toppled Prime Minister K.P Sharma Oli within days of a government ban on social media.
These cases mark different points on the spectrum of outcomes. Protesters in Sri Lanka and Nepal converted disruption into institutional turnover, resulting in the installation of new elected governments following the uprisings. Young people in Bangladesh toppled a government but have struggled to translate that disruption into a stable institutional order. In India, CJP called off its protest after the government met its three immediate demands—the education minister’s resignation, withdrawal of criminal investigations against protesters, and compensation for the families of students who died by suicide following the leak. However, the settlement remains contentious, as CJP raised concerns that the government was not honoring its commitments, with a spokesperson warning that the protest would resume if punitive action against student protesters continued.
Youth uprisings matter, then, not simply as sudden, spectacular action but as a means of amplifying the voice of a demographic majority and reshaping the terms of legitimacy and accountability between citizens and the state.
The movement’s broader charter—a new Public Examinations Act, reform of national examination bodies, a students’ rights charter, a national aspirant welfare fund, and permanent parliamentary oversight of examination authorities—is due to be taken up in a further round of talks with the government. The protests have yet to produce lasting institutional change, yet they have already demonstrated the capacity of young people to organize and exercise self-determination over their own political future.
Generation Gap
The United Nations estimates that the world is home to 1.3 billion young people, more than half of them living in low- and lower-middle-income countries. Almost half of South Asia’s 1.8 billion people are under the age of 24, giving the region the world’s largest youth labor force until 2040.
Yet political power across South Asia remains generationally divided with the average age of Indian parliamentary representatives at 56. In Sri Lanka, only 4 of 212 MPs are under 30, while in Pakistan it’s just 7 of 311.
These figures expose a widening generational gap between aging political elites who have long monopolized legislative power and a younger generation that has grown up in the digital age expecting greater accountability but experiencing political marginalization. A related tension is a growing disconnect between economic liberalization and meaningful employment opportunities and social mobility for a generation of youth pursuing higher education.
In India, a democracy of 1.4 billion people, youth representation in the country’s legislative politics remains strikingly narrow along lines of age, gender, and caste. Over the past few decades, the share of young MPs aged 25-40 in the lower house of India’s parliament has fallen from 30% to just 10%.
Youth uprisings matter, then, not simply as sudden, spectacular action but as a means of amplifying the voice of a demographic majority and reshaping the terms of legitimacy and accountability between citizens and the state. These movements have galvanized global solidarity around regional struggles. They have been made increasingly possible by digitally mediated technology and decentralized, leaderless organizing.
Digital Pluses and Minuses
Central to the profound historical shifts in social movements is the emergence of the internet as a space for dissent. Sociologist Manuel Castells frames the internet as a “hybrid space of autonomy” where cyberspace and physical urban space merge into a new kind of social location for political actions. These networked movements, Castells argues, are characterized by spontaneity, virality, decentralization, and ad hoc collaborative deliberation with no single leader.
As the CJP movement tweeted, filmed, and Instagrammed in real time, its networked visibility diversified participation and displaced the state and the traditional media’s monopoly over the narratives of its violence and police brutality. However, Zeynep Tufekci cautions against the fragility of networked movements, which mobilize with extraordinary speed but often lack the internal capacities, leadership structures, negotiating experience, and resilience that older movements built over years of slower political organization.
Their activism reflects a wider shift toward collective action that is increasingly contentious, globalized, and proactive.
Although digital movements enable horizontal mobilization and egalitarian participation in emancipatory struggles, post-uprising outcomes often remain uncertain. Social movement scholars have noted a recurring pattern. Movements built on decentralized coordination excel at forcing concessions or toppling governments, but they struggle to convert that same horizontal structure into hierarchical institutional governance. This leaves established political actors better positioned to reassert control during the transition, making it harder for movements to transcend regime change and translate initial disruption into long-term democratic transformation that the participants demanded. Nevertheless, these movements have expanded democratic possibilities by opening up new locations of collective belonging, political self-expression, and altruism.
In the end, the collective benefits of a social movement can outweigh the success or failure of a challenger’s program because social movements have many influences, both tangible and intangible, that go beyond the explicitly stated goals. In CJP’s case, these benefits include the representation of youth voices and the democratic rights of the country’s largest demographic group. Their activism reflects a wider shift toward collective action that is increasingly contentious, globalized, and proactive. In a larger sense, this contributes to a more participatory polity where Indian citizens exercise political rights and shape political outcomes directly.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Americans Will Give Trump an F': Analysis Shows Surging Costs of School Supplies
"If the president continues to treat our economy like a schoolyard game, our students and their families will pay the price."
Jul 27, 2026
Even as President Donald Trump continues dismissing Americans' concerns about affordability heading into the 2026 midterm elections, a study released on Monday reveals that US parents are about to pay a hefty premium to ensure their children are prepared for school this fall.
A joint analysis from Groundwork Collaborative and The Century Foundation finds that a typical basket of school supplies costs nearly 8% more than it did last year, with typical school lunch items costing 11% more.
Lunch boxes have posted the largest yearly price increase, as the analysis estimates they will cost nearly 27% more this year than in 2025. Other items whose prices have soared include one-subject notebooks (23% yearly increase), index cards (22%), and notebook paper (20%).
Trump's illegal war with Iran, which has caused fuel prices including diesel to surge higher, has played a large role in increasing prices, as have his tariffs on foreign imports, the report notes.
The increase in diesel has been particularly troublesome for the price of food, the analysis points out, as the fuel is used both by farmers to power their agricultural equipment and by delivery trucks that ship food to grocery stores.
When it comes to the tariffs, the report points to Newell Brands—the company that makes Sharpies, Paper Mate, Elmer's glue, and other school supply staples—which has been hit with a $174 million tax bill thanks to Trump's policies and has consistently raised prices over the last year.
The report also points to changes made to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) made in Republicans' 2025 budget law that will make it harder for low-income kids to qualify for food assistance this school year.
Lindsay Owens, president of Groundwork Collaborative, said Trump's policies are forcing parents "to worry about whether they can afford to buy what their students need to be successful in the classroom."
"If the president continues to treat our economy like a schoolyard game, our students and their families will pay the price," said Owens. "When report cards come this year, Americans will give Trump an F.”
Janelle Jones, senior fellow at The Century Foundation, noted that school supplies aren't luxuries for families, but rather "the baseline for a kid to show up ready to learn."
"When notebooks and paper are up over 20%," Jones emphasized, "we’re not just squeezing family budgets, we’re setting students up to fall behind. We know where this leads: lower test scores, more kids repeating grades, and worse outcomes well into adulthood."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Cockroaches Won!': Youth-Led Protests Called Off After India's Education Minister Quits
"Don't mistake the beginning for the end," said the Cockroach Janta Party, which vowed to press for further reforms and government accountability.
Jul 26, 2026
India's Cockroach Janta Party ended its five-week multi-city protest on Saturday after the youth-led movement's key demand—the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan—was met.
“We have done it,” CJP spokesperson Saurav Das told a jubilant crowd at New Delhi's Jantar Mantar. "Pradhan has sent in his resignation, which means that our first demand has been met."
Das said that the protesters' second main demand, the withdrawal of criminal investigations targeting CJP members, was also met. However, members and supporters of the movement noted that some cockroach protesters remain in detention and vowed to continue pressing for their release.
Pradhan's resignation is the first such surrender to public pressure during the 12-year tenure of Hindu nationalist Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
“Considering the situation at Jantar Mantar and elsewhere in the country, and so that anti-national forces do not take advantage of the circumstances, national unity is maintained, no student’s future gets entangled in legal complications, and our children can focus on their studies and building their careers, I have submitted my resignation," Pradhan said in a statement.
Pradhan's tenure was marred by repeated leaks of National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) papers in a scandal that has upended the lives of millions of students by forcing them to retake the grueling exams and delaying their university admissions. CJP organizers said more than 20 students have killed themselves over the matter.
The now-ex education minister had dismissed the protesters as “the B-team of terrorists.”
On Sunday, Modi said he would authorize the creation of an examination reform task force headed by Nandan Nilekani, co-founder of Indian tech giant Infosys.
“The government of India is continuously taking various measures for the future of students," the Bharatiya Janata Party prime minister said in a video posted on social media. "However, we must look to the future. Our examination system needs to be reliable and transparent, and it must make maximum use of technology."
The protest movement began in May after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant reportedly compared unemployed young people to “cockroaches.” The protesters, led by political strategist Abhijeet Dipke, satirically reclaimed the slur as the symbol of a movement that has grown into a broader challenge to Modi’s increasingly authoritarian rule, which has seen mounting repression of protest and dissent, including restrictions on journalists and activists, and the use of "lawfare" to target critics.
Last week, tens of thousands of youth-led protesters marched in New Delhi, where they were met and attacked by police batons and tear gas. Indian media reported thousands of injuries.
The mood was markedly different following Pradhan's resignation.
"Cockroaches won!" many CJP members and supporters said.
Others added, "Democracy Won!"
"This is democracy," said the CJP.
"Now that the cockroaches have won their first battle, may they win many more," Tavleen Singh, a columnist for The Indian Express, wrote on X. "May they become a real political party in the near future."
Sonam Wangchuk, an environmentalist whose hunger strike was a focal point of the cockroach protests, was released Sunday from a Gurugram hospital, where he had been recovering from his 26-day fast since Thursday.
Emboldened by the CJP victory, members of the Communist Party of India (CPI)-affiliated All-India Youth Federation and All-India Students' Federation marched on the Chennai residence of Tamil Nadu Gov. Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar demanding the abolition of the NEET. According to Indian media reports, police detained more than 200 of the demonstrators.
"The struggle will intensify," said CPI.
"Don't mistake the beginning for the end," echoed CJP.
Asked Sunday what's next for the cockroach movement, Dipke told an ANI reporter that "we will soon share the next strategy."
"This has just ended yesterday," he added, "please give us a little time."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Black Day for Democracy': Indian Police Bash and Gas Youth-Led 'Cockroach' Protesters
“It’s just shocking to see that the people we elected have turned a blind eye to youth dying," said one protester.
Jul 20, 2026
Indian protesters rallying Monday in New Delhi under the banner of the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party were brutally attacked by police as they marched toward the country's Parliament demanding the resignation of the country's education minister and denouncing the right-wing government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of the Indian capital despite police bans, barricades, internet shutdowns, and a heavy security presence. Police, some of them in plain clothes, attacked the overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrators with baton charges and tear gas. Delhi police are controlled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled central government.
The Wire reported that thousands of people were injured—some seriously—by police. Despite video footage and photos showing officer brutality, Delhi Police denied "sporadic use of violence" against protesters.
The protesters are seeking the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan following repeated leaks of National Eligibility Entrance Test papers that have upended the lives of millions of students by forcing them to retake the grueling exams and delaying university admissions. Protest organizers say more than 20 students have killed themselves over the matter.
Late last month, Pradhan dismissed the protesters as "the B-team of terrorists."
“Already more than 20 students have died by suicide, but this government is not done yet," Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke said on social media. "This government has resorted to hooliganism now.”
Protester Rhythm Katoch told The Guardian on Monday: “They are calling this protest illegal, they are calling us anti-national. But I am 22 years old, and I am standing here to fight for our education system, for the rights of the young people, and for our democracy. Is it too much to ask for the government to listen to us?”
The CJP and other student groups have been leading hunger strikes at the Jantar Mantar, an 18th-century astronomical observatory designated as the protest site. Three students from the leftist All India Students' Association ended their fast on Monday, while environmentalist Sonam Wangchuk, who has been on a hunger strike since June 28, was taken by authorities on Saturday to Safdarjung Hospital, where he continues his fast.
“I am touched and moved by how the youth have held on to peace despite provocation,” Wangchuk said Monday.
The movement began in May after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant reportedly compared unemployed young people to “cockroaches." The protesters satirically reclaimed the slur as the symbol of a movement that has grown into a broader challenge to Modi's increasingly authoritarian Hindu nationalist rule, which has seen mounting repression of protest and dissent, including restrictions on journalists and activists, and the use of legal measures to target critics.
On Monday, protesters chanted “Go, Pradhan, Go, Saat Mein Modi Ko Bhi Lo! (Take Modi along with you too!),” banging plastic bottles on the ground to keep the beat.
“It’s just shocking to see that the people we elected have turned a blind eye to youth dying… because of their incompetency,” Sajal, a 22-year-old law student, told The Straits Times.
Another protester, yoga instructor Jyoti Rajput, told The Associated Press that she joined the demonstration because “this rotten system refuses to take action.”
“It cannot see the pain of students, and that’s why so many people have joined this movement,” she added.
Amid Monday's demonstration, CJP leaders met Union Minister JP Nadda at his Delhi home.
"The minister assured us he will discuss this at the appropriate level,” CJP spokesperson Saurav Das said on social media. “However, no commitments have been made so far.”
Responding to the brutal crackdown, Amnesty International India board chair Aakar Patel said in a statement that “the images and reports emerging from the protest at Jantar Mantar show how peaceful dissent is being suppressed in India."
“The role of the authorities is to protect and facilitate peaceful protests, not to suppress them," he continued. "The right to freedom of peaceful assembly is recognized under international human rights law and the Indian Constitution."
"The Delhi Police’s actions raise serious questions about whether their response met the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality under international human rights standards," Patel added. "We call on the Delhi Police to exercise restraint and immediately cease the use of unlawful force against peaceful protesters. Authorities must ensure that all allegations of unlawful conduct, including the reported excessive use of batons, tear gas, and stone-throwing by police personnel, are promptly, independently, and impartially investigated.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
New Trump Visa Rules Set to Make Life Harder for International Students, Journalists
One legal advocacy group said the rule change "will be costly, cause chaos, and cut legal immigration."
Jul 16, 2026
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."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Fire Any Financial Advisor Who Tells You to Utilize a Trump Account
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.
Jul 07, 2026
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.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Want to Celebrate America’s 250th? Uplift Public 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.
Jun 29, 2026
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.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Backlash as Texas Approves 'Unconstitutional' Mandatory Bible Lessons in Public Schools
“That’s government-sponsored religious favoritism—and the First Amendment strictly forbids it," said one critic.
Jun 26, 2026
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.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Accused of 'Abandoning Kids With Disabilities' in New Assault on Education Department
"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."
Jun 17, 2026
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."
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy