

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.
As with the U.S. border wall with Mexico, Trump has been obsessed with the idea of creating Space Force for several years. (Photo: Trump Make America Great Again Committee)
Donald Trump, who will go down in history as the most reviled president of all time, has just won a major victory in the creation of a sixth branch of the military: Space Force. Trump will be able to claim credit for a serious milestone--with the smooth cooperation of both major parties.
On Dec. 20, Trump signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act after both chambers of Congress passed the bill. A major provision of the law was the creation of Space Force, a military unit the president was openly seeking. His achievement was apparently won in exchange for conceding to Democrats’ demands for paid parental leave for federal employees. But for the Democrats to claim this as a victory is curious given that paid parental leave is an issue that Trump’s own daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump has strongly supported.
Just as the idea of nuclear weapons was sold to the American public as a safety mechanism--a “nuclear deterrent”--to discourage other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, Space Force is being explained as a way for the U.S. to prevent rather than promote conflict.
The idea for Space Force started out as a joke by Trump when he flippantly said, during a 2018 speech in San Diego, Calif.: “I was saying it the other day because we’re doing a tremendous amount of work in space. I said, ‘Maybe we need a new force, we’ll call it the Space Force.’ And I was not really serious. Then I said, ‘What a great idea, maybe we’ll have to do that.’ ” A year ago, when Democrats won enough congressional seats to claim victory in the House, the fate of Space Force was in serious doubt. The Atlantic speculated that “[w]ith the House of Representatives flipped and Congress split, the Trump administration’s Space Force will probably never get off the ground.” But just 13 months later, Democrats and Republicans together gave the most unpopular president in memory the approval he needed to fast-track his idea into reality.
In 2018, Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island expressed his opposition to Space Force, saying it was ”not the way to go.” A year later, Reed capitulated when he voted for the latest NDAA encompassing the creation of Space Force, saying the bill was “a responsible compromise that strengthens our national defense capabilities.” Regardless of the liberal party’s feigned opposition to warfighting, militarism has always been a bipartisan project, and it is no surprise that the militarization of space is as well.
As with the U.S. border wall with Mexico, Trump has been obsessed with the idea of creating Space Force for several years. During his first year in office, he was reportedly fixated on space, and according to an Axios report, the president “would ask random questions about rocket ships and marvel to hear about satellites and the junk floating around in space. His questions were unfocused, like a student trying to learn about a new subject.”
Now, with his political victory in hand, Trump will likely tout Space Force as one of his crowning achievements. Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, last year asked Trump supporters to vote on a Space Force logo for the branded gear the campaign planned to sell, and Trump’s reelection website now offers Space Force-themed T-shirts, hats and bumper stickers for sale.
Decades of exposure to seductive science-fiction storytelling in movies and TV shows have romanticized the idea of space, space travel and the militarization of space. Hollywood has depicted countless scenes of war with laser-like beams destroying rival spaceships and the “good guys” prevailing in the end. The genre has remained deeply popular, with millions of Americans eagerly devouring Disney’s Star Wars-branded TV series, “The Mandalorian,” this fall and sharing Baby Yoda memes online. The new Star Wars franchise film, “The Rise of Skywalker,” made its theatrical debut Dec. 20--coincidentally, the same day that Trump formalized the creation of Space Force.
Whether or not science fiction directly promotes the idea of Space Force, there is a strong conflation between fiction and nonfiction when it comes to space. DefenseNews.com triumphantly announced the creation of the new branch with a Star-Wars-referencing headline, “May the Space Force be with you.” The Washington Post’s David Montgomery took it a step further into popular culture with his laudatory article, “Trump’s Excellent Space Force Adventure,” in which he claimed that the president’s “proposal for a new military branch really could make America safe again.” Netflix even explored the idea of a TV show called Space Force starring Steve Carrell. Reinforcing the fusion of reality and fantasy, the new website for Space Force uses a font strongly reminiscent of the popular “Star Trek” TV series in its headlines.
Perhaps many of us imagine that as in the movies, a military presence in space is justifiable for the noblest of reasons. Just as the idea of nuclear weapons was sold to the American public as a safety mechanism -- a “nuclear deterrent” -- to discourage other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, Space Force is being explained as a way for the U.S. to prevent rather than promote conflict. In an op-ed published in The Washington Post last March, Vice President Mike Pence -- with a heavy dose of revisionism about the U.S.’ military role--wrote, “The United States will always seek peace in space as on Earth, but history proves that peace only comes through strength. And in the realm of outer space, the Space Force will be that strength.”
Brig. Gen. Thomas James, director of operations for Space Command, reinforced this notion, explaining his objective to Foreign Policy as, “No. 1 is to deter conflict to extend into space.” He added, “Then, if it does extend into space, are we able to defend our assets?” Finally, he expressed what is likely the U.S.’ main objective: “And the third is our ability to defeat an adversary, and that could be through any means, not just in space but through multidomain operations.”
Gen. John E. Hyten, one of the originators of the idea of Space Force, spoke in far more honest terms when he said in March 2018, “We must normalize space and cyberspace as warfighting domains.” In his recent speech before signing the NDAA, Trump echoed that hawkish desire, saying, “Space is the world’s new war-fighting domain. ... American superiority in space is absolutely vital.”
Currently, Congress has appropriated $40 million to jump-start Space Force as a part of the existing U.S. Air Force. That is just over half of what the Trump administration asked for, and although it is a relatively modest amount, the ensuing costs will likely be higher in line with the steadily increasing budget of the entire U.S. military. At the same time as raging debates over how taxpayers can afford lifesaving programs like “Medicare for All” or food stamps, Congress and the president blithely threw even more money at the military and its newest branch.
As the devastating impacts of our endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to unfold, lawmakers have casually, without much debate, expanded the arena of war into space.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I’ve ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That’s why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we’ve ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here’s the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That’s not just some fundraising cliche. It’s the absolute and literal truth. We don’t accept corporate advertising and never will. We don’t have a paywall because we don’t think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Donald Trump, who will go down in history as the most reviled president of all time, has just won a major victory in the creation of a sixth branch of the military: Space Force. Trump will be able to claim credit for a serious milestone--with the smooth cooperation of both major parties.
On Dec. 20, Trump signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act after both chambers of Congress passed the bill. A major provision of the law was the creation of Space Force, a military unit the president was openly seeking. His achievement was apparently won in exchange for conceding to Democrats’ demands for paid parental leave for federal employees. But for the Democrats to claim this as a victory is curious given that paid parental leave is an issue that Trump’s own daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump has strongly supported.
Just as the idea of nuclear weapons was sold to the American public as a safety mechanism--a “nuclear deterrent”--to discourage other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, Space Force is being explained as a way for the U.S. to prevent rather than promote conflict.
The idea for Space Force started out as a joke by Trump when he flippantly said, during a 2018 speech in San Diego, Calif.: “I was saying it the other day because we’re doing a tremendous amount of work in space. I said, ‘Maybe we need a new force, we’ll call it the Space Force.’ And I was not really serious. Then I said, ‘What a great idea, maybe we’ll have to do that.’ ” A year ago, when Democrats won enough congressional seats to claim victory in the House, the fate of Space Force was in serious doubt. The Atlantic speculated that “[w]ith the House of Representatives flipped and Congress split, the Trump administration’s Space Force will probably never get off the ground.” But just 13 months later, Democrats and Republicans together gave the most unpopular president in memory the approval he needed to fast-track his idea into reality.
In 2018, Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island expressed his opposition to Space Force, saying it was ”not the way to go.” A year later, Reed capitulated when he voted for the latest NDAA encompassing the creation of Space Force, saying the bill was “a responsible compromise that strengthens our national defense capabilities.” Regardless of the liberal party’s feigned opposition to warfighting, militarism has always been a bipartisan project, and it is no surprise that the militarization of space is as well.
As with the U.S. border wall with Mexico, Trump has been obsessed with the idea of creating Space Force for several years. During his first year in office, he was reportedly fixated on space, and according to an Axios report, the president “would ask random questions about rocket ships and marvel to hear about satellites and the junk floating around in space. His questions were unfocused, like a student trying to learn about a new subject.”
Now, with his political victory in hand, Trump will likely tout Space Force as one of his crowning achievements. Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, last year asked Trump supporters to vote on a Space Force logo for the branded gear the campaign planned to sell, and Trump’s reelection website now offers Space Force-themed T-shirts, hats and bumper stickers for sale.
Decades of exposure to seductive science-fiction storytelling in movies and TV shows have romanticized the idea of space, space travel and the militarization of space. Hollywood has depicted countless scenes of war with laser-like beams destroying rival spaceships and the “good guys” prevailing in the end. The genre has remained deeply popular, with millions of Americans eagerly devouring Disney’s Star Wars-branded TV series, “The Mandalorian,” this fall and sharing Baby Yoda memes online. The new Star Wars franchise film, “The Rise of Skywalker,” made its theatrical debut Dec. 20--coincidentally, the same day that Trump formalized the creation of Space Force.
Whether or not science fiction directly promotes the idea of Space Force, there is a strong conflation between fiction and nonfiction when it comes to space. DefenseNews.com triumphantly announced the creation of the new branch with a Star-Wars-referencing headline, “May the Space Force be with you.” The Washington Post’s David Montgomery took it a step further into popular culture with his laudatory article, “Trump’s Excellent Space Force Adventure,” in which he claimed that the president’s “proposal for a new military branch really could make America safe again.” Netflix even explored the idea of a TV show called Space Force starring Steve Carrell. Reinforcing the fusion of reality and fantasy, the new website for Space Force uses a font strongly reminiscent of the popular “Star Trek” TV series in its headlines.
Perhaps many of us imagine that as in the movies, a military presence in space is justifiable for the noblest of reasons. Just as the idea of nuclear weapons was sold to the American public as a safety mechanism -- a “nuclear deterrent” -- to discourage other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, Space Force is being explained as a way for the U.S. to prevent rather than promote conflict. In an op-ed published in The Washington Post last March, Vice President Mike Pence -- with a heavy dose of revisionism about the U.S.’ military role--wrote, “The United States will always seek peace in space as on Earth, but history proves that peace only comes through strength. And in the realm of outer space, the Space Force will be that strength.”
Brig. Gen. Thomas James, director of operations for Space Command, reinforced this notion, explaining his objective to Foreign Policy as, “No. 1 is to deter conflict to extend into space.” He added, “Then, if it does extend into space, are we able to defend our assets?” Finally, he expressed what is likely the U.S.’ main objective: “And the third is our ability to defeat an adversary, and that could be through any means, not just in space but through multidomain operations.”
Gen. John E. Hyten, one of the originators of the idea of Space Force, spoke in far more honest terms when he said in March 2018, “We must normalize space and cyberspace as warfighting domains.” In his recent speech before signing the NDAA, Trump echoed that hawkish desire, saying, “Space is the world’s new war-fighting domain. ... American superiority in space is absolutely vital.”
Currently, Congress has appropriated $40 million to jump-start Space Force as a part of the existing U.S. Air Force. That is just over half of what the Trump administration asked for, and although it is a relatively modest amount, the ensuing costs will likely be higher in line with the steadily increasing budget of the entire U.S. military. At the same time as raging debates over how taxpayers can afford lifesaving programs like “Medicare for All” or food stamps, Congress and the president blithely threw even more money at the military and its newest branch.
As the devastating impacts of our endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to unfold, lawmakers have casually, without much debate, expanded the arena of war into space.
Donald Trump, who will go down in history as the most reviled president of all time, has just won a major victory in the creation of a sixth branch of the military: Space Force. Trump will be able to claim credit for a serious milestone--with the smooth cooperation of both major parties.
On Dec. 20, Trump signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act after both chambers of Congress passed the bill. A major provision of the law was the creation of Space Force, a military unit the president was openly seeking. His achievement was apparently won in exchange for conceding to Democrats’ demands for paid parental leave for federal employees. But for the Democrats to claim this as a victory is curious given that paid parental leave is an issue that Trump’s own daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump has strongly supported.
Just as the idea of nuclear weapons was sold to the American public as a safety mechanism--a “nuclear deterrent”--to discourage other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, Space Force is being explained as a way for the U.S. to prevent rather than promote conflict.
The idea for Space Force started out as a joke by Trump when he flippantly said, during a 2018 speech in San Diego, Calif.: “I was saying it the other day because we’re doing a tremendous amount of work in space. I said, ‘Maybe we need a new force, we’ll call it the Space Force.’ And I was not really serious. Then I said, ‘What a great idea, maybe we’ll have to do that.’ ” A year ago, when Democrats won enough congressional seats to claim victory in the House, the fate of Space Force was in serious doubt. The Atlantic speculated that “[w]ith the House of Representatives flipped and Congress split, the Trump administration’s Space Force will probably never get off the ground.” But just 13 months later, Democrats and Republicans together gave the most unpopular president in memory the approval he needed to fast-track his idea into reality.
In 2018, Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island expressed his opposition to Space Force, saying it was ”not the way to go.” A year later, Reed capitulated when he voted for the latest NDAA encompassing the creation of Space Force, saying the bill was “a responsible compromise that strengthens our national defense capabilities.” Regardless of the liberal party’s feigned opposition to warfighting, militarism has always been a bipartisan project, and it is no surprise that the militarization of space is as well.
As with the U.S. border wall with Mexico, Trump has been obsessed with the idea of creating Space Force for several years. During his first year in office, he was reportedly fixated on space, and according to an Axios report, the president “would ask random questions about rocket ships and marvel to hear about satellites and the junk floating around in space. His questions were unfocused, like a student trying to learn about a new subject.”
Now, with his political victory in hand, Trump will likely tout Space Force as one of his crowning achievements. Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, last year asked Trump supporters to vote on a Space Force logo for the branded gear the campaign planned to sell, and Trump’s reelection website now offers Space Force-themed T-shirts, hats and bumper stickers for sale.
Decades of exposure to seductive science-fiction storytelling in movies and TV shows have romanticized the idea of space, space travel and the militarization of space. Hollywood has depicted countless scenes of war with laser-like beams destroying rival spaceships and the “good guys” prevailing in the end. The genre has remained deeply popular, with millions of Americans eagerly devouring Disney’s Star Wars-branded TV series, “The Mandalorian,” this fall and sharing Baby Yoda memes online. The new Star Wars franchise film, “The Rise of Skywalker,” made its theatrical debut Dec. 20--coincidentally, the same day that Trump formalized the creation of Space Force.
Whether or not science fiction directly promotes the idea of Space Force, there is a strong conflation between fiction and nonfiction when it comes to space. DefenseNews.com triumphantly announced the creation of the new branch with a Star-Wars-referencing headline, “May the Space Force be with you.” The Washington Post’s David Montgomery took it a step further into popular culture with his laudatory article, “Trump’s Excellent Space Force Adventure,” in which he claimed that the president’s “proposal for a new military branch really could make America safe again.” Netflix even explored the idea of a TV show called Space Force starring Steve Carrell. Reinforcing the fusion of reality and fantasy, the new website for Space Force uses a font strongly reminiscent of the popular “Star Trek” TV series in its headlines.
Perhaps many of us imagine that as in the movies, a military presence in space is justifiable for the noblest of reasons. Just as the idea of nuclear weapons was sold to the American public as a safety mechanism -- a “nuclear deterrent” -- to discourage other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, Space Force is being explained as a way for the U.S. to prevent rather than promote conflict. In an op-ed published in The Washington Post last March, Vice President Mike Pence -- with a heavy dose of revisionism about the U.S.’ military role--wrote, “The United States will always seek peace in space as on Earth, but history proves that peace only comes through strength. And in the realm of outer space, the Space Force will be that strength.”
Brig. Gen. Thomas James, director of operations for Space Command, reinforced this notion, explaining his objective to Foreign Policy as, “No. 1 is to deter conflict to extend into space.” He added, “Then, if it does extend into space, are we able to defend our assets?” Finally, he expressed what is likely the U.S.’ main objective: “And the third is our ability to defeat an adversary, and that could be through any means, not just in space but through multidomain operations.”
Gen. John E. Hyten, one of the originators of the idea of Space Force, spoke in far more honest terms when he said in March 2018, “We must normalize space and cyberspace as warfighting domains.” In his recent speech before signing the NDAA, Trump echoed that hawkish desire, saying, “Space is the world’s new war-fighting domain. ... American superiority in space is absolutely vital.”
Currently, Congress has appropriated $40 million to jump-start Space Force as a part of the existing U.S. Air Force. That is just over half of what the Trump administration asked for, and although it is a relatively modest amount, the ensuing costs will likely be higher in line with the steadily increasing budget of the entire U.S. military. At the same time as raging debates over how taxpayers can afford lifesaving programs like “Medicare for All” or food stamps, Congress and the president blithely threw even more money at the military and its newest branch.
As the devastating impacts of our endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to unfold, lawmakers have casually, without much debate, expanded the arena of war into space.
Democratic lawmakers on Thursday vowed to fight back against US President Donald Trump's efforts to attack and dismantle liberal and progressive organizations.
Led by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), the Democrats introduced the No Political Enemies Act aimed at protecting organizations' free speech rights from retaliation from the federal government.
During his speech touting the new legislation, Murphy recounted recent actions by Trump and his administration, including the president's threats to "arrest members of the Soros family simply for funding groups that oppose his agenda," as well as Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr's pressure campaign to get ABC to fire late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel.
Murphy then said that the No Political Enemies Act was necessary because "Donald Trump is right now instructing his Department of Justice to go on the hunt for his political enemies" for challenging him.
"Trump is making it 100% clear that he is going to ramp up his efforts to use the power of the federal government to punish his critics," he said. "This is legislation that makes sure that the law is on the side of free speech and the right to dissent."
The proposed law would give political organizations and individuals new tools to combat political harassment from the federal government, and would allow them to both recover attorney fees and more easily file lawsuits against federal officials who abuse their authority for political purposes.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), who also expressed support for the legislation, put the stakes facing Americans in stark terms.
"We are in the biggest free speech crisis this country has faced since the McCarthy era," he said. "The murder of Charlie Kirk was a horrific crime, and it's clear that Trump wants to hijack that horrific crime to silence anyone who disagrees with the president about any issue."
Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also took a shot at major corporations who have been caving to the president's demands in recent months.
"As we saw last night, far too many billionaires and corporate-owned media companies are bending the knee: Disney and ABC, Paramount and CBS, the Washington Post editorial board, Facebook," he said. "Let's be clear, the ultrawealthy men who own these companies are making a choice. David Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Bob Iger—these men are enriching themselves, auctioning off the United State's First Amendment to a wannabe dictator and tyrant."
Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) pointed out that the FCC's pressure campaign on ABC to fire Kimmel is particularly nefarious given that Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which is the network's largest affiliate, is currently involved in merger talks that will need FCC approval.
"All of this ties back to money and people enriching themselves, and bending the knee to Donald Trump to make it happen," he said.
The Democrats' proposed legislation comes after Trump announced late Wednesday night that he planned to designate “antifa,” a movement of autonomous individuals and loosely affiliated groups who oppose fascism, as a “major terrorist organization."
It also comes comes days after Trump adviser Stephen Miller began pushing a plan to "dismantle" the organized left using the power of the federal government.
During a recent appearance on Fox News, Miller described the entire left as a "domestic terrorism movement in this country," and vowed "to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence."
President Donald Trump's Department of Education has announced that it will partner with right-wing think tanks and organizations to develop a new curriculum for “patriotic education” in American classrooms.
Earlier this week, the Trump administration redirected $137 million initially meant for programs aimed at minority students toward what it described as "American history and civics education."
Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced Wednesday that the money will be directed toward discretionary grants aimed at K-12 schools that adopt a new curriculum being drawn up by the 250 Civics Education Coalition—a consortium of more than 40 right-wing groups that launched on same day. The goal, McMahon said, was to advance education that "emphasizes a unifying and uplifting portrayal of the nation's founding ideals" in advance of the nation's 250th anniversary in 2026.
It is not Trump's first crack at instilling the nation's youth with a "patriotic education." In the waning days of his first term in office, Trump unveiled the 1776 Report, which, education columnist Jennifer Berkshire recently noted in The Baffler, "was widely panned by actual historians for its worshipful treatment of the Founding Fathers, its downplaying of slavery, and its portrayal of a century-old 'administrative state' controlled by leftist radicals."
While little has been publicized yet about what McMahon's new endeavor will look like, it is known who will be crafting it. The initiative is being led by the America First Policy Institute, a MAGA-aligned think tank that has been responsible for staffing Trump's second administration and has received over $1 million from his political action committee, the Save America PAC. Until 2023, McMahon herself served on the board of AFPI.
In 2022, the group presented a piece of model legislation for a "Civics Course Act" to be introduced in states. It included requirements for students to spend ample time studying the nation's founding documents and figures while banning the teaching of what it called the "defamatory history of America’s founding," which suggests that slavery or inequality are in any way inherent to the nation's institutions.
It also banned the concepts of "systemic racism" and "gender fluidity" and forbade teachers from giving students course credit for engaging with "social or public policy advocacy."
Also included in the coalition is Hillsdale College, a private Christian liberal arts school in Michigan that has proposed its own K-12 curriculum, which Vanity Fair notes "has been criticized for revisionist history, including whitewashed accounts of US slavery and depictions of Jamestown as a failed communist colony."
Another participant is PragerU, the overtly partisan and often factually loose YouTube channel that has been tasked with creating children's educational content in nearly a dozen red states.
The group has produced content venerating figures notorious for practicing slavery, like colonist Christopher Columbus and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. Its videos have argued, among other things, that climate change is a myth, that European fascism was a "far-left" ideology, and that Israel has "the world's most moral army."
The pro-Trump youth group Turning Point USA will also be involved in crafting the curriculum. Its longtime leader, Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated in Utah last week, went on a crusade last year to, in his words, "tell the truth" about Martin Luther King Jr., whom he described as "an awful person," while claiming his signature achievement, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, was a "huge mistake."
An offshoot of Kirk's group, Turning Point Education, said Kirk's assassination has increased its resolve to promote a "God-centered, virtuous education" in US public schools.
The 250 Civics Education Coalition has not yet published a curriculum. But according to the Department of Education, it will be rolling out "a robust programming agenda" over the next 12 months.
During Trump's second term, he has undertaken an effort to purge federal museums and national parks of what one executive order called "improper ideology," which has resulted in the erasure of exhibits and monuments to Black and Native American history. Last month, he lamented that the Smithsonian Museum focuses too much on "how bad slavery was" and ordered a review of the museum's content.
Federal websites, meanwhile, have systematically eliminated many pages that acknowledged the accomplishments of nonwhite historical figures or important events in women's and LGBTQ+ history.
Critics in the education world view Trump's effort to use grants to induce them to adopt his preferred curriculum as an illegal effort to propagandize children.
"The law is clear," said education historian Diane Ravitch in a blog post. "Federal officials are prohibited from seeking to influence or direct curriculum in any way."
Since 1970, the federal government has been barred by law from "any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum" of public schools.
"Civic education is and must be non-partisan," said Ted McConnell, the executive director of the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools. "While the funding is long sought, this is the wrong approach and smacks of authoritarianism."
On the US Senate floor Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren gave her Republican colleagues a choice: undo the damage they caused to the healthcare of millions of Americans by slashing Medicaid and insurance subsidies, or explain to the public why they refuse to do so—even if it means shutting down the government.
Warren (D-Mass.) spoke about a proposal released by the Democrats Wednesday night to keep the government running through October 31—averting a shutdown at the beginning of next month—if the GOP agrees to restore the $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts and extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies to keep out-of-pocket premiums from rising by an average of 75% for millions of people who purchase health insurance through the ACA.
A Congressional Budget Office analysis released Thursday found that making the ACA subsidies permanent would increase the number of insured people by nearly 4 million.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have said Democrats will not vote for Republicans' proposal to extend government funding at its current level through November 21, including the cuts in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, unless the GOP opens bipartisan talks on the legislation.
So far, GOP leaders have not asked the Democrats for input—but the Republicans will need at least 60 votes to pass the spending proposal in the Senate and will require Democrats to vote with them.
On the Senate floor, Warren told the Republicans how they can ensure that result.
"Before working moms go broke from a cancer diagnosis, Congress must act. Before community hospitals are forced to shut down, Congtess must act," said the senator. "That is why Democrats are saying: 'If Republicans want our votes, they need to restore healthcare for Americans.'"
While Schumer has demanded bipartisan talks and called for the GOP to make concessions on healthcare, he told The Washington Post Wednesday that the Democrats do not have a "red line."
Schumer angered progressive lawmakers and many of his own constituents in March when he joined the GOP to advance a spending bill that kept the government open—but cut $13 billion in nonmilitary federal spending and did nothing to rein in President Donald Trump and his then-adviser, Elon Musk, as they eviscerated government agencies.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said Tuesday that the current "alignment of Democratic leadership and appropriators in recognition of this moment of leverage is heartening."
“A budget deal should be contingent on addressing Americans’ top economic priority—the cost of and access to healthcare. If Republicans refuse to negotiate and move away from their cost-increasing agenda, then they are the ones who will be forcing a government-wide shutdown," said Gilbert. "There should be no deal without assurances that the budget will be honored and not impounded, and that it will begin to return care to the American people.”
By refusing to meet with the Democrats thus far, said Kobie Christian of Unrig Our Economy, GOP leaders are thus far showing that "if it isn’t about giving the ultrarich another tax break, Republicans in Congress aren’t interested."
“Every day that Congress does not take action to prevent increases in health insurance premiums, more and more Americans are at risk of facing higher healthcare costs and losing coverage," said Christian. "It’s time that congressional Republicans come to the table and find a solution to help all Americans, not just the ultrawealthy.”
On her way to the Senate floor Thursday, Warren said that "if Republicans want our votes for this budget, they've got to restore healthcare for millions of Americans."
"It's really that simple," she added.