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.
This picture taken on November 22, 2021 shows a child standing at a camp for internally displaced people where staff members from Doctors Without Borders (MSF) check for signs of malnutrition, on the outskirts of Herat. The UN's children's agency UNICEF estimates that some 3.2 million Afghan children under the age of five will suffer from malnutrition this winter. (Photo: Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
Despite unprecedented levels of hunger and starvation for which U.S. sanctions bear important responsibility, Afghanistan has once again virtually disappeared from the most important single source of world news for most Americans.
Since September, which marked the end of U.S. efforts to evacuate its citizens and its foreign and Afghan allies, the evening news programs of the three dominant U.S. television networks--ABC, NBC, and CBS--have collectively devoted a grand total of 21 minutes--spread over ten story segments--to Afghanistan.
No more U.S. soldiers and marines on the ground, no more coverage on the evening news, and Afghanistan, despite Washington's enormous impact on the country, both through its military intervention and now through its sanctions, fades quickly into distant memory.
That marks a stunning plunge in evening news attention from a total of 427 minutes devoted to Afghanistan in the two previous months, about 75 percent of which were broadcast in August during the Taliban's takeover of the country and the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. and allied personnel. Just one three-minute segment has aired since December 1.
"For the American networks this year, what was newsworthy was the fall of Kabul and the pullout of U.S. troops, not the fate of the Afghan people in the aftermath," noted Andrew Tyndall, editor of the authoritative Tyndall Report, which has monitored the three networks' nightly news broadcasts each weekday since 1988.
Moreover, 15 of those 21 minutes devoted to Afghanistan between October 1 to December 25 had nothing to do with its increasingly desperate humanitarian crisis that threatens nearly 23 million people--or more than half the country's population--with "extreme levels of hunger," and as many as one million children with death due to severe acute malnutrition this winter.
Indeed, four of the ten segments were hopeful, "feel-good" stories focused almost entirely on U.S.-based efforts to help former Afghan allies who are adapting to their new lives in the United States or are still trying to flee the country. A fifth story dealt with an initiative to help Afghan girls continue their education in computer coding remotely, and a sixth was a heart-warming segment about U.S. Army medics who served in Afghanistan in 2011.
Only two of the ten news segments addressed the unfolding humanitarian disaster, which was described by the Trump-appointed director of the UN's World Food Program, former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, as "hell on earth" earlier this month.
While the major cable news networks often receive more media attention, the three network evening news shows collectively remain the single most important source of international news in the United States.
On weekday evenings, an average of about 20 million U.S. viewers tune in to national news programs on CBS, ABC, or NBC. That's roughly four times the number of people who rely on the major cable stations--Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN--for their news during prime time. About two million more people watch the network news via the internet, according to Tyndall.
What appears on the national networks often exerts a major influence on the news agenda at other U.S. media organizations. "Because network news shows are the most mainstream of the mainstream media," Tyndall told Responsible Statecraft, "they can be used as a proxy for the news judgment of mainstream media more generally."
As I noted in an article published in August, a major reason why Americans were so shocked by the dramatic collapse of the U.S.-supported regime in Kabul was the fact that the three weekday evening news programs devoted a combined total of only five minutes to coverage of Afghanistan during all of 2020. More recently tabulated statistics compiled by the Tyndall Report show that Afghanistan was entirely absent from the network evening news in January through March of 2021 and claimed a total of only 82 minutes between April and the end of July before hitting 345 minutes in August when the Taliban swept across the country and entered Kabul. In September, by which time the Taliban had taken full control and virtually all Americans had left Afghanistan, the combined network total fell sharply to 82 minutes only to fall even further, to ten minutes in October.
The two three-minute segments that addressed the growing humanitarian and hunger crisis aired on NBC Nightly News and ABC Evening News on November 17 and December 15, respectively.
To be fair, the CBS news organization as a whole devoted much more attention to the disastrous situation in Afghanistan than indicated by its evening news program. In fact, it alerted its "CBS Mornings" audience to the brewing crisis back on October 20 when it cited UN warnings that "95 percent of people in Afghanistan are going hungry" and featured an on-site account by correspondent Imtiaz Tyab.
But the morning network news shows generally attract only about a third of the audiences of their evening counterparts.
Much more commendable was CBS's coverage of the humanitarian crisis in a nearly 15-minute segment featured on the December 12 edition of "60 Minutes," the nation's most widely watched prime-time public affairs program whose audience normally numbers about nine million. "Negotiating with the Taliban" featured interviews not only with representatives of international humanitarian groups, but also with the Taliban's health minister.
What was missing in the "60 Minutes" segment, as with the two evening news segments about the crisis on the ABC and NBC, however, was any focus on the U.S. role in restricting or blocking funding that could help alleviate its catastrophic impact. As noted by Julie Hollar of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the ABC reporter referred only to a "mix of sanctions and drought" as the crisis's main causes, while NBC's segment concluded its report by simply noting the Taliban's appeal to "the United States and other governments to unblock funds frozen since the takeover." Even the "60 Minutes" story failed to note Washington's contribution to the crisis, insisting instead that it was the much vaguer "international community" that was responsible for "freezing Afghan assets, shutting down foreign aid, and extending sanctions."
Left behind: 23 million Afghans at risk of starvation to add to the roughly 176,000 Afghans killed during America's longest war.
While that characterization is technically true, the main driver of these actions since August has been the United States, which froze $9.5 billion of (Afghanistan's own) foreign reserves, pressured the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to delay emergency support, and effectively denied Afghanistan's banks access to the international financial system.
While the Biden administration in recent days has eased some restrictions on aid to non-governmental and international organizations in response to increasing international and Congressional pressure, as well as an appeal by former senior U.S. military officers and diplomats who served in Afghanistan, one would think that Washington's responsibility for the Afghan people's current plight would be highly relevant to U.S. news organizations purportedly dedicated to informing American citizens about what their government is doing.
After all, taxpayers have spent an estimated $2.3 trillion and lost more than 2,400 service members during Washington's 20-year war in Afghanistan. And the three networks' weekday evening news broadcasts themselves devoted a total of 5,590 minutes to covering that war over that same period.
But more than 90 percent of those 93-plus hours, Tyndall told Responsible Statecraft in August, was devoted to the U.S. role in the actual fighting.
No more U.S. soldiers and marines on the ground, no more coverage on the evening news, and Afghanistan, despite Washington's enormous impact on the country, both through its military intervention and now through its sanctions, fades quickly into distant memory. Left behind: 23 million Afghans at risk of starvation to add to the roughly 176,000 Afghans killed during America's longest war.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Despite unprecedented levels of hunger and starvation for which U.S. sanctions bear important responsibility, Afghanistan has once again virtually disappeared from the most important single source of world news for most Americans.
Since September, which marked the end of U.S. efforts to evacuate its citizens and its foreign and Afghan allies, the evening news programs of the three dominant U.S. television networks--ABC, NBC, and CBS--have collectively devoted a grand total of 21 minutes--spread over ten story segments--to Afghanistan.
No more U.S. soldiers and marines on the ground, no more coverage on the evening news, and Afghanistan, despite Washington's enormous impact on the country, both through its military intervention and now through its sanctions, fades quickly into distant memory.
That marks a stunning plunge in evening news attention from a total of 427 minutes devoted to Afghanistan in the two previous months, about 75 percent of which were broadcast in August during the Taliban's takeover of the country and the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. and allied personnel. Just one three-minute segment has aired since December 1.
"For the American networks this year, what was newsworthy was the fall of Kabul and the pullout of U.S. troops, not the fate of the Afghan people in the aftermath," noted Andrew Tyndall, editor of the authoritative Tyndall Report, which has monitored the three networks' nightly news broadcasts each weekday since 1988.
Moreover, 15 of those 21 minutes devoted to Afghanistan between October 1 to December 25 had nothing to do with its increasingly desperate humanitarian crisis that threatens nearly 23 million people--or more than half the country's population--with "extreme levels of hunger," and as many as one million children with death due to severe acute malnutrition this winter.
Indeed, four of the ten segments were hopeful, "feel-good" stories focused almost entirely on U.S.-based efforts to help former Afghan allies who are adapting to their new lives in the United States or are still trying to flee the country. A fifth story dealt with an initiative to help Afghan girls continue their education in computer coding remotely, and a sixth was a heart-warming segment about U.S. Army medics who served in Afghanistan in 2011.
Only two of the ten news segments addressed the unfolding humanitarian disaster, which was described by the Trump-appointed director of the UN's World Food Program, former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, as "hell on earth" earlier this month.
While the major cable news networks often receive more media attention, the three network evening news shows collectively remain the single most important source of international news in the United States.
On weekday evenings, an average of about 20 million U.S. viewers tune in to national news programs on CBS, ABC, or NBC. That's roughly four times the number of people who rely on the major cable stations--Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN--for their news during prime time. About two million more people watch the network news via the internet, according to Tyndall.
What appears on the national networks often exerts a major influence on the news agenda at other U.S. media organizations. "Because network news shows are the most mainstream of the mainstream media," Tyndall told Responsible Statecraft, "they can be used as a proxy for the news judgment of mainstream media more generally."
As I noted in an article published in August, a major reason why Americans were so shocked by the dramatic collapse of the U.S.-supported regime in Kabul was the fact that the three weekday evening news programs devoted a combined total of only five minutes to coverage of Afghanistan during all of 2020. More recently tabulated statistics compiled by the Tyndall Report show that Afghanistan was entirely absent from the network evening news in January through March of 2021 and claimed a total of only 82 minutes between April and the end of July before hitting 345 minutes in August when the Taliban swept across the country and entered Kabul. In September, by which time the Taliban had taken full control and virtually all Americans had left Afghanistan, the combined network total fell sharply to 82 minutes only to fall even further, to ten minutes in October.
The two three-minute segments that addressed the growing humanitarian and hunger crisis aired on NBC Nightly News and ABC Evening News on November 17 and December 15, respectively.
To be fair, the CBS news organization as a whole devoted much more attention to the disastrous situation in Afghanistan than indicated by its evening news program. In fact, it alerted its "CBS Mornings" audience to the brewing crisis back on October 20 when it cited UN warnings that "95 percent of people in Afghanistan are going hungry" and featured an on-site account by correspondent Imtiaz Tyab.
But the morning network news shows generally attract only about a third of the audiences of their evening counterparts.
Much more commendable was CBS's coverage of the humanitarian crisis in a nearly 15-minute segment featured on the December 12 edition of "60 Minutes," the nation's most widely watched prime-time public affairs program whose audience normally numbers about nine million. "Negotiating with the Taliban" featured interviews not only with representatives of international humanitarian groups, but also with the Taliban's health minister.
What was missing in the "60 Minutes" segment, as with the two evening news segments about the crisis on the ABC and NBC, however, was any focus on the U.S. role in restricting or blocking funding that could help alleviate its catastrophic impact. As noted by Julie Hollar of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the ABC reporter referred only to a "mix of sanctions and drought" as the crisis's main causes, while NBC's segment concluded its report by simply noting the Taliban's appeal to "the United States and other governments to unblock funds frozen since the takeover." Even the "60 Minutes" story failed to note Washington's contribution to the crisis, insisting instead that it was the much vaguer "international community" that was responsible for "freezing Afghan assets, shutting down foreign aid, and extending sanctions."
Left behind: 23 million Afghans at risk of starvation to add to the roughly 176,000 Afghans killed during America's longest war.
While that characterization is technically true, the main driver of these actions since August has been the United States, which froze $9.5 billion of (Afghanistan's own) foreign reserves, pressured the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to delay emergency support, and effectively denied Afghanistan's banks access to the international financial system.
While the Biden administration in recent days has eased some restrictions on aid to non-governmental and international organizations in response to increasing international and Congressional pressure, as well as an appeal by former senior U.S. military officers and diplomats who served in Afghanistan, one would think that Washington's responsibility for the Afghan people's current plight would be highly relevant to U.S. news organizations purportedly dedicated to informing American citizens about what their government is doing.
After all, taxpayers have spent an estimated $2.3 trillion and lost more than 2,400 service members during Washington's 20-year war in Afghanistan. And the three networks' weekday evening news broadcasts themselves devoted a total of 5,590 minutes to covering that war over that same period.
But more than 90 percent of those 93-plus hours, Tyndall told Responsible Statecraft in August, was devoted to the U.S. role in the actual fighting.
No more U.S. soldiers and marines on the ground, no more coverage on the evening news, and Afghanistan, despite Washington's enormous impact on the country, both through its military intervention and now through its sanctions, fades quickly into distant memory. Left behind: 23 million Afghans at risk of starvation to add to the roughly 176,000 Afghans killed during America's longest war.
Despite unprecedented levels of hunger and starvation for which U.S. sanctions bear important responsibility, Afghanistan has once again virtually disappeared from the most important single source of world news for most Americans.
Since September, which marked the end of U.S. efforts to evacuate its citizens and its foreign and Afghan allies, the evening news programs of the three dominant U.S. television networks--ABC, NBC, and CBS--have collectively devoted a grand total of 21 minutes--spread over ten story segments--to Afghanistan.
No more U.S. soldiers and marines on the ground, no more coverage on the evening news, and Afghanistan, despite Washington's enormous impact on the country, both through its military intervention and now through its sanctions, fades quickly into distant memory.
That marks a stunning plunge in evening news attention from a total of 427 minutes devoted to Afghanistan in the two previous months, about 75 percent of which were broadcast in August during the Taliban's takeover of the country and the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. and allied personnel. Just one three-minute segment has aired since December 1.
"For the American networks this year, what was newsworthy was the fall of Kabul and the pullout of U.S. troops, not the fate of the Afghan people in the aftermath," noted Andrew Tyndall, editor of the authoritative Tyndall Report, which has monitored the three networks' nightly news broadcasts each weekday since 1988.
Moreover, 15 of those 21 minutes devoted to Afghanistan between October 1 to December 25 had nothing to do with its increasingly desperate humanitarian crisis that threatens nearly 23 million people--or more than half the country's population--with "extreme levels of hunger," and as many as one million children with death due to severe acute malnutrition this winter.
Indeed, four of the ten segments were hopeful, "feel-good" stories focused almost entirely on U.S.-based efforts to help former Afghan allies who are adapting to their new lives in the United States or are still trying to flee the country. A fifth story dealt with an initiative to help Afghan girls continue their education in computer coding remotely, and a sixth was a heart-warming segment about U.S. Army medics who served in Afghanistan in 2011.
Only two of the ten news segments addressed the unfolding humanitarian disaster, which was described by the Trump-appointed director of the UN's World Food Program, former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, as "hell on earth" earlier this month.
While the major cable news networks often receive more media attention, the three network evening news shows collectively remain the single most important source of international news in the United States.
On weekday evenings, an average of about 20 million U.S. viewers tune in to national news programs on CBS, ABC, or NBC. That's roughly four times the number of people who rely on the major cable stations--Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN--for their news during prime time. About two million more people watch the network news via the internet, according to Tyndall.
What appears on the national networks often exerts a major influence on the news agenda at other U.S. media organizations. "Because network news shows are the most mainstream of the mainstream media," Tyndall told Responsible Statecraft, "they can be used as a proxy for the news judgment of mainstream media more generally."
As I noted in an article published in August, a major reason why Americans were so shocked by the dramatic collapse of the U.S.-supported regime in Kabul was the fact that the three weekday evening news programs devoted a combined total of only five minutes to coverage of Afghanistan during all of 2020. More recently tabulated statistics compiled by the Tyndall Report show that Afghanistan was entirely absent from the network evening news in January through March of 2021 and claimed a total of only 82 minutes between April and the end of July before hitting 345 minutes in August when the Taliban swept across the country and entered Kabul. In September, by which time the Taliban had taken full control and virtually all Americans had left Afghanistan, the combined network total fell sharply to 82 minutes only to fall even further, to ten minutes in October.
The two three-minute segments that addressed the growing humanitarian and hunger crisis aired on NBC Nightly News and ABC Evening News on November 17 and December 15, respectively.
To be fair, the CBS news organization as a whole devoted much more attention to the disastrous situation in Afghanistan than indicated by its evening news program. In fact, it alerted its "CBS Mornings" audience to the brewing crisis back on October 20 when it cited UN warnings that "95 percent of people in Afghanistan are going hungry" and featured an on-site account by correspondent Imtiaz Tyab.
But the morning network news shows generally attract only about a third of the audiences of their evening counterparts.
Much more commendable was CBS's coverage of the humanitarian crisis in a nearly 15-minute segment featured on the December 12 edition of "60 Minutes," the nation's most widely watched prime-time public affairs program whose audience normally numbers about nine million. "Negotiating with the Taliban" featured interviews not only with representatives of international humanitarian groups, but also with the Taliban's health minister.
What was missing in the "60 Minutes" segment, as with the two evening news segments about the crisis on the ABC and NBC, however, was any focus on the U.S. role in restricting or blocking funding that could help alleviate its catastrophic impact. As noted by Julie Hollar of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the ABC reporter referred only to a "mix of sanctions and drought" as the crisis's main causes, while NBC's segment concluded its report by simply noting the Taliban's appeal to "the United States and other governments to unblock funds frozen since the takeover." Even the "60 Minutes" story failed to note Washington's contribution to the crisis, insisting instead that it was the much vaguer "international community" that was responsible for "freezing Afghan assets, shutting down foreign aid, and extending sanctions."
Left behind: 23 million Afghans at risk of starvation to add to the roughly 176,000 Afghans killed during America's longest war.
While that characterization is technically true, the main driver of these actions since August has been the United States, which froze $9.5 billion of (Afghanistan's own) foreign reserves, pressured the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to delay emergency support, and effectively denied Afghanistan's banks access to the international financial system.
While the Biden administration in recent days has eased some restrictions on aid to non-governmental and international organizations in response to increasing international and Congressional pressure, as well as an appeal by former senior U.S. military officers and diplomats who served in Afghanistan, one would think that Washington's responsibility for the Afghan people's current plight would be highly relevant to U.S. news organizations purportedly dedicated to informing American citizens about what their government is doing.
After all, taxpayers have spent an estimated $2.3 trillion and lost more than 2,400 service members during Washington's 20-year war in Afghanistan. And the three networks' weekday evening news broadcasts themselves devoted a total of 5,590 minutes to covering that war over that same period.
But more than 90 percent of those 93-plus hours, Tyndall told Responsible Statecraft in August, was devoted to the U.S. role in the actual fighting.
No more U.S. soldiers and marines on the ground, no more coverage on the evening news, and Afghanistan, despite Washington's enormous impact on the country, both through its military intervention and now through its sanctions, fades quickly into distant memory. Left behind: 23 million Afghans at risk of starvation to add to the roughly 176,000 Afghans killed during America's longest war.
"What angers Greenblatt is that Mamdani isn't courting HIM," said one advocate. "By winning the bulk of the young Jewish vote while condemning Israel, Mamdani is exposing how out of touch Greenblatt is."
The largest Muslim civil rights group in the U.S. on Tuesday was among those condemning the latest attacks from the Anti-Defamation League on New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, whom ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt this week accused of not reaching out to the city's Jewish population.
On CNBC Monday, Greenblatt claimed Mamdani, a Democratic state assembly member who stunned former Gov. Andrew Cuomo by winning the primary in June by nearly eight points, has not visited "a single synagogue... one Jewish neighborhood" or "any of the mainstream Jewish institutions."
A number of observers pointed to several instances in which Mamdani has visited Jewish centers and places of worship during his campaign, including attending Shabbat services in Brooklyn in February, taking part in a town hall with the Jewish Community Relations Council in May with United Jewish Appeal Federation, and attending candidate forums at Congregation B’nai Jeshurun in June.
Greenblatt later published a post about the interview on the social media platform X, saying this time that Mamdani had not visited Jewish synagogues or other communities since the primary in June—but Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of Jewish Currents, suggested the head of the ADL attacks Mamdani not for things he has or hasn't done, but because many Jewish people have embraced him as their candidate of choice.
"Of course Mamdani has visited synagogues and Jewish communities," said Beinart. "What angers Greenblatt is that Mamdani isn't courting HIM. By winning the bulk of the young Jewish vote while condemning Israel, Mamdani is exposing how out of touch Greenblatt is with many of the people he claims to represent. That's what makes Mamdani a threat."
As Common Dreams reported last month, Mamdani led Cuomo—who is running in the general election as an independent following his primary loss—by five points in a poll by Zenith Research. More than two-thirds of likely Jewish voters between the ages of 18 and 44 said they planned to vote for Mamdani, who has condemned Israel's apartheid policies and its US-backed bombardment and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.
Beinart added that while Greenblatt may be "unaware" of Mamdani's relationship with Jewish voters, "his unawareness says nothing about reality. It says a lot about him."
In the interview, Greenblatt also doubled down on attacks that began in June regarding Mamdani's refusal to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada," which pro-Israel groups have claimed denotes support for violent attacks by militants against Israel—but which the mayoral candidate pointed out in a podcast interview is to many people "a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights."
"Why won't he condemn 'globalize the intifada?' Because he believes it?" said Greenblatt, adding that the phrase suggests support for attacks by Palestinian militants who have "killed people simply because they were Jewish."
The Arabic word "intifada" means "struggle" or "uprising" and is associated by Palestinian rights advocates with Palestinians' fight for self-determination and freedom from Israel's occupation—which took the form of numerous non-violent protests including boycotts, labor strikes, and marches, as well as armed resistance, during the First and Second Intifadas.
Jasmine El-Gamal, a foreign policy analyst and host of the podcast "The View From Here," noted that "not one of the presenters corrected Greenblatt when he lied and said the intifada was a violent uprising that 'killed people simply because they were Jewish.'"
"The intifada was an uprising against an occupation," said El-Gamal. "Whether or not you agree with the concept of violent resistance, the fact is, Greenblatt blatantly lied and no one batted an eyelash."
Mamdani has never publicly used the phrase "globalize the intifada," and has said he would "discourage" others from doing so.
At the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), national deputy executive director Edward Ahmed Mitchell said Greenblatt's "dishonest and bigoted attacks on Assemblymember Mamdani represent the latest sign that the ADL director is an increasingly unhinged anti-Muslim bigot masquerading as a civil rights leader."
Referring to Greenblatt's refusal to condemn an apparent Nazi salute by former Trump administration adviser Elon Musk in January, Mitchell said Greenblatt "will bend over backwards to give real antisemites a pass so long as they support Israel's genocide while he goes out of the way to lie about and smear Muslim public officials if they dare to oppose Israel's genocide."
"Mr. Greenblatt's top priority is protecting the Israeli government from criticism," said Mitchell, "and no one should take his claim about American Muslim leaders seriously."
Basim Elkarra, executive director of CAIR-Action, said Greenblatt's comments "are not only misleading—they risk stoking division at a time when New Yorkers need unity."
"Subjecting Muslim elected officials to such bigotry is dishonest, dangerous, and diverts attention from substantive policy issues," said Elkarra. "We urge all public figures to condemn Jonathan Greenblatt and others who attempt to inflame bigotry against American Muslims engaged in politics."
"This MAGA loyalty test will be yet another turnoff for teachers in a state already struggling with a huge shortage," said American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten.
Teachers from California and New York seeking work in Oklahoma will be required to pass an "America First Test" designed to weed out applicants espousing "radical leftist ideology," the state's public schools chief affirmed Monday.
Oklahoma—which has a severe teacher shortage, persistently high turnover, and some of the nation's worst educational outcomes—will compel prospective public school educators from the nation's two largest "blue" states to submit to the exam in a bid to combat what Superintendent for Public Instruction Ryan Walters calls "woke indoctrination."
"As long as I am superintendent, Oklahoma classrooms will be safeguarded from the radical leftist ideology fostered in places like California and New York," Walters said in a statement Monday.
Walters told USA Today that the test is necessary to vet teachers from states where educators "are teaching things that are antithetical to our standards" and ensure they "are not coming into our classrooms and indoctrinating kids."
However, American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten warned in a statement Monday that "this MAGA loyalty test will be yet another turnoff for teachers in a state already struggling with a huge shortage."
The exam will be administered by Prager University—also known as PragerU—a right-wing nonprofit group which, despite its name, is not an academic institution and does not confer degrees.
While all of the test's 50 questions have not been made public, the ones that have been published run the gamut from insultingly basic—such as, "What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?"—to ideologically fraught queries regarding the "biological differences between females and males."
PragerU's "educational" materials are rife with false or misleading information regarding slavery, racism, immigration, the history of fascism, and the climate emergency. Critics note that the nonprofit has received millions of dollars in funding from fossil fuel billionaires.
PragerU materials also promote creation mythology over scientific evolution and attack LGBTQ+ people, especially transgender individuals, calling lifesaving gender-affirming healthcare "barbaric" while likening its proponents to "monsters."
In one animated PragerU video, two children travel back in time to ask the genocidal explorer Christopher Columbus why he is so hated today. Columbus replies by asserting the superiority of Europeans over Indigenous "cannibals" and attempting to justify the enslavement of Native Americans by arguing that "being taken as a slave is better than being killed."
Closer to home, PragerU's curriculum aligns with so-called "white discomfort" legislation passed in Oklahoma and other Republican-controlled states that critics say prevents honest lessons on slavery, the Jim Crow and civil rights eras, and enduring systemic racism.
The law has had a chilling effect on teachers' lessons on historical topics including the 1921 Tulsa massacre, in which a white supremacist mob backed armed by city officials destroyed more than 35 city blocks of Greenwood, the "Black Wall Street," murdering hundreds of Black men, women, and children in what the US Justice Department this year called a "coordinated, military-style attack."
Responding to Oklahoma's new policy, University of Pennsylvania history professor Jonathan Zimmerman told The Associated Press that "instead of Prager simply being a resource that you can draw in an optional way, Prager has become institutionalized as part of the state system."
"There's no other way to describe it," he said, adding, "I think what we're now seeing in Oklahoma is something different, which is actually empowering Prager as a kind of gatekeeper for future teachers."
Oklahoma is not the only state incorporating PragerU materials into its curriculum. Florida, Montana, New Hampshire, and Texas have also done so to varying degrees.
Weingarten noted Walters' previous push to revise Oklahoma's curriculum standards to include baseless conspiracy theories pushed by President Donald Trump that Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. Walters also ordered all public schools to teach the Bible, a directive temporarily blocked by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in March. The court also recently ruled against the establishment of the nation's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school.
"His priority should be educating students, but instead, it's getting Donald Trump and other MAGA politicians to notice him," Weingrarten said in her statement.
Cari Elledge, president of the Oklahoma Education Association, called the new testing requirement "a political stunt to grab attention" and a distraction "from real issues in Oklahoma."
"When political ideology plays into whether or not you can teach in any place, that might be a deterrent to quality educators attempting to get a job," she added. "We think it's intentional to make educators fearful and confused."
California Teachers' Association president David Goldberg told USA Today that "this almost seems like satire and so far removed from my research around what Oklahoma educators need and deserve."
"I can't see how this isn't some kind of hyper-political grandstanding that doesn't serve any of those needs," he added.
"Stephen Miller was a loser in college, and now we all must pay for it," remarked one critic.
Stephen Miller, the hardline immigrant-trashing adviser to US President Donald Trump, drew scorn and ridicule on Wednesday after he dismissed people protesting against the National Guard deployment in Washington, DC as elderly and ignorant "hippies."
During a visit to Union Station along with Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Miller took a shot at local residents who in recent days have demonstrated against Trump's takeover of their city's law enforcement.
"All these demonstrators that you've seen out here in recent days, all these elderly white hippies, they're not part of the city and never have been," Miller claimed. "We're gonna ignore these stupid white hippies that all need to go home and take a nap because they're all over 90 years old."
Stephen Miller: "All these demonstrators that you've seen out here in recent days, all these elderly white hippies, they're not part of the city and never have been ... we're gonna ignore these stupid white hippies that all need to go home and take a nap because they're all over… pic.twitter.com/v7Bj4pfEPW
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 20, 2025
Hundreds of people over this past weekend took part in a "Free DC" protest against the presence of the National Guard and assorted federal agents patrolling the city, and many other spontaneous protests have erupted as local residents have regularly gathered to jeer federal officials carrying out operations in their neighborhoods.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, shared a photo on Bluesky of an event that took place in the city on Tuesday, and he pointed out that people of different ages and colors can be seen protesting against the presence of the National Guard in their city.
"I don't see one 'elderly white hippie' there," he remarked. "I do see a wide variety of ages, genders, and races; DC residents united in disgust at what Miller is cheering on."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse also slammed Miller for failing to notice the diversity of the crowds protesting against Trump's DC initiative.
"Stephen Miller is apparently so racist he can’t even *see* nonwhite people on the streets of DC protesting his goons," he commented on Bluesky. "Wait, is *that* what they meant by 'colorblind conservatism?'"
Pam Fessler, author and former correspondent for NPR, gave Miller a swift fact check in a post on X.
"Besides Miller's nastiness, he's wrong," she explained. "Guess what? A majority of DC residents, regardless of race, oppose Trump's unnecessary just-for-show federal takeover."
A poll released by The Washington Post on Wednesday backs up this point, as it found that 79% of DC residents are opposed to Trump's takeover, including 69% who register as "strongly" opposed.
Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University College of Law, speculated on Bluesky that Miller is lashing out at "hippies" to make up for his own past inadequacies.
"Stephen Miller was a loser in college, and now we all must pay for it... sincerely, someone who remembers him from school," said Kreis, who attended University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at the same time Miller was attending nearby Duke University.
Podcaster Bob Cesca, meanwhile, warned Miller to be careful in antagonizing Washington, DC residents.
"I take comfort in the idea that, for the rest of his miserable life, he'll wonder how much phlegm and/or feces has been added to his restaurant meals," he joked on X.