Term limits for Supreme Court Justices have been proposed as a way to make the Court more representative of the partisan makeup of the country. In this episode of You Don’t Have To Yell, Suzanna Sherry, Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University, explains how this would result in more partisan judges, more partisan rulings, and legal instability.
Committee ranking member Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) delivers remarks during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee vote on the nomination of Lori Chavez-DeRemer as the next Secretary of Labor February 27, 2025 in Washington, DC
WASHINGTON—Some Senate Democrats voiced concerns this week about damage to free speech due to a new law that would define antisemitism. However, several Democrats co-sponsored the bill with most Republicans.
“I worry that this bill is unconstitutional and will move us far along the authoritarian direction that the Trump administration is taking us,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at Wednesday’s hearing in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
The bill would require the Department of Education to use the “working definition” of antisemitism, drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. Currently, the Department of Education has been using the same definition but has not been legally required to do so. This bill would change that.
Supporters of the bill argued that adding the definition would be an opportunity for the United States to show “that we are with those students that have been harassed, to reassure parents and their children as much as we can that they will be safe from discrimination, harassment, and even physical abuse,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chair of the HELP committee.
Critics, however, argued the bill would crack down on free speech for students critical of Israel. They described the bill as part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to weaponize antisemitism, following protests at universities in the last few years.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The definition, which is considered “non-legally binding” by its creators, starts with: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” It also includes 11 contemporary examples of what they say could be considered antisemitic. That list includes “making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
During the hearing, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) argued that the bill protects free speech but punishes harmful actions that follow speech. But Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejected that as violating the First Amendment right to free speech.
“Every example of antisemitism in that list is about words, not action. You can’t regulate speech,” Paul said. “The First Amendment is not about protecting good speech. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a Nazi and an antisemitic who said horrible things. The Supreme Court ruled that you can say terrible things.”
In an open letter to Congress, 10 pro-Israel organizations expressed concern about the potential passage of the Antisemitism Awareness Act.
“Voting in favor of this legislation in this current political climate would represent an endorsement of the Trump administration’s escalating efforts to weaponize antisemitism as a pretext for undermining civil rights, deporting political dissidents, and attacking the fundamental pillars of our democracy, making the Jewish community and others less safe,” the groups wrote.
“I think the bill is very restrictive, but the fundamental problem is that no one could tell you what it means,” said Douglas Laycock, an emeritus law professor at the University of Virginia and an expert on religious liberty and the First Amendment. “The ‘certain perception of Jews’ that the definition talks about is not described and not defined. If I gave you the text of a speech I was about to give, no one could tell me if I’m violating the law. ‘Unconstitutionally vague’ is also one of the problems here.”
In a statement posted on their website in February, after House Republicans reintroduced the bill in their branch, Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement that “the Antisemitism Awareness Act reinforces federal policy and ensures the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism remains the standard for addressing antisemitic discrimination in education. I urge Congress to act now and pass this vital, bipartisan bill.”
Kenneth Stern, director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate at Bard College and one of the lead authors of the definition, spoke in front of the House Judiciary Committee last September. He said that while the working definition had examples related to Israel because there was “a correlation between such expressions and level of antisemitism,” it was never intended to “target or chill speech in a college campus.”
Wednesday’s Senate hearing ended without a vote on the bill, but the committee adjourned and will resume its work on the bill in the future. An Anti-Defamation League spokesperson said to the Jewish Insider that they are “committed to pursuing every possible avenue to advance this important bill and will continue working with our bipartisan partners in Congress to see it signed into law.”
Leonardo Pini is a graduate student at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, specializing in politics, policy, and foreign affairs. Born and raised in Italy, he worked professionally for the local edition of Italy’s national outlet “la Repubblica”, covering crime news. He also freelanced for “L’Espresso” magazine on foreign affairs and social issues. He produced two podcasts for RAI Radio, an Italian state radio, on asylum patients and assisted suicide. During his time at Medill, he was a fellow at Capitol News Illinois reporting on Illinois’ legislation.
Broken speech bubbles.
In a disappointing turn of events, Connecticut has chosen to follow the precedent set by President Donald Trump’s English-Only Executive Order, effectively disregarding the federal mandates of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
By failing to rectify its longstanding systemic indifference to non-native English speakers, the state has dismissed the opportunity to provide critical information to English language learners, sign language users, and those who rely on plain language for comprehension.
At the heart of this issue was Senate Bill 955, a bill I authored and proposed which was introduced in the 2025 legislative session by Sen. MD Rahman. The bill sought to establish policies ensuring that individuals with limited English proficiency could access information and public services through translation and interpretation resources. It was a necessary step toward creating an Office of Language Access, a centralized entity that would oversee and coordinate language accessibility efforts statewide.
However, despite its potential to serve over 400,000 residents whose primary language is not English, the bill failed to make it out of the Government Administration and Elections Committee.
The failure of SB 955 is more than just a legislative setback; it is a denial of fundamental rights. Language access is not a privilege—it is a necessity for equitable participation in civic life. Without it, thousands of Connecticut residents, throughout their lifespan, are left without the ability to engage with government services, healthcare providers, legal systems, and educational institutions in a meaningful way.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This decision reflects a troubling trend of information privilege and linguistic exclusion, reinforcing barriers for non-English speakers and sign language users. It is a stark contrast to the principles of inclusivity and equal opportunity that Connecticut claims to uphold. The absence of a dedicated Office of Language Access means that residents will continue to face fragmented and inconsistent language services, further marginalizing communities that already struggle to navigate bureaucratic systems.
For years, advocates have fought to correct this injustice, working tirelessly to ensure that Connecticut recognizes the rights of ALL residents, regardless of their linguistic background. The failure to pass SB 955 is not just a rejection of a bill—it is a rejection of the people it was meant to serve.
As Connecticut moves forward, it must reconsider its stance on language access. The state cannot afford to ignore the voices of those who have been systematically excluded. The fight for equitable information and language access is far from over, and it is imperative that lawmakers revisit this issue with the urgency and commitment it deserves.
The question remains: Will Connecticut continue to turn its back on its diverse communities, or will it finally take action to ensure that language access is no longer a barrier to essential services? The answer will define the state’s commitment to civil rights for years to come.
A Missed Opportunity was originally published by the CT Mirror and Is shared with permission.
Doris Maldonado Mendez is a member of the Connecticut Mirror’s Community Editorial Board.
White House Senior Advisor, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attends a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.
The DOGE is not the first effort to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in government. It is the first to receive such vociferous disdain along what appears to be purely political lines. Most presidents have made efforts in these areas, some more substantial than others, with limited success. Here are some modern examples.
In 1982, President Reagan used an executive order to establish a private sector task force to identify inefficiencies in government spending (commonly called the Grace Commission). The final report included 2,478 recommendations to reduce wasteful government practices, estimated savings of $429 billion over the first three years and $6.8 trillion between 1985 and 2000. Most of the savings required legislative changes, and Congress ignored most of those proposals.
In 1993, President Clinton launched the National Performance Review, with Vice President Al Gore in charge, intending to “make the entire federal government less expensive and more efficient, and to change the culture of our national bureaucracy away from complacency and entitlement toward initiative and empowerment." Their initial report identified $108 billion in potential savings, much of which required legislation and was never implemented. However, there were purely administrative suggestions as well, many of which were implemented. Al Gore indicated that 24,000 federal jobs had been reduced through the National Performance Review, mainly through buyouts, a bit more than 1% of the workforce at that time.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In 2005, President George W. Bush proposed a savings package that included $2.3 billion in rescissions—essentially canceling unused balances from 55 federal programs, as part of a strategy to rebuild critical infrastructure in the Gulf region after Hurricane Katrina. Congress did not approve his proposal.
In 2011, President Obama launched theCampaign to Cut Waste, which aimed to eliminate misspent tax dollars across federal agencies. This included measures like consolidating federal websites and creating an oversight board to track spending. This effort was established by executive order, and Vice President Biden took an important role.
All modern presidents have made at least minimal efforts to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, though the Trump/DOGE effort has been unusual. Consider the following three examples.
First, the effort is broader and deeper than any prior effort. Many billions of dollars, American taxpayer dollars, are wasted by government agencies and paid fraudulently. Is addressing this in depth and breadth a bad thing? Should they just pick around the edges, find a few billion dollars, and go home?
Second, instead of studying the problems for months or years and then proposing legislation, a duly elected President instructed appointed members of his administration to aggressively identify and implement specific changes that were thought to be within his executive authority. He took an expansive view of his powers, and not surprisingly, there have been legal challenges.
Third, various sources suggest that between 70,000 and 150,000 federal employees have been laid off through DOGE and other administration efforts. There are plans for more. Perhaps the final number will reach 10% of the federal workforce (excluding the military and the post office). These cuts may seem extreme, but in the private sector, a restructuring that results in a 10-15% reduction in a company’s workforce is not all that unusual. Yes, there will be some hiccups in government services, but federal jobs are not sacrosanct.
We should not be surprised that the public perception of the DOGE effort is extreme, fully reflecting the current nature of our modern and highly partisan politics.
Politicians and pundits on the left are appalled by the effort. They argue that such cuts will decimate vital government services and have been handled in a cold and insensitive manner. There are claims that these efforts are unconstitutional despite the President’s Constitutional role in managing the federal government workforce (subject, of course, to civil service and related laws and regulations), managing the bureaucracy in general, and minimizing waste and fraud. Given that the full spectrum of the political left (traditional Democrats, Progressives, and a small but vocal group of Socialists) believes in a strong federal government to address societal challenges, some resistance on that basis is to be expected. However, their visceral and intrinsic rejection of all things Trump makes it appear they are either against the elimination of waste and fraud or believe it does not exist. And is it wrong to wonder if those who complain the loudest have somehow been the biggest beneficiaries of a broken system?
Politicians and pundits on the right have mostly been supportive and argue that these reductions in programs and the workforce are but a small part of the necessary reduction in government spending. However, newly approved cabinet secretaries pushed back on DOGE’s authority to implement such cuts directly. In early March, the President told his cabinet secretaries they were in charge of the actual cuts, not DOGE.
Most on the right (traditional and conservative Republicans, RINOs, and especially those of the MAGA persuasion) are supportive of the idea. Nearly one hundred days in, they may be a bit disappointed that the results seem more talk than action. They see Republicans in Congress and the administration negotiating on a “big, beautiful bill” that so far does not reflect much in the way of government reductions. Some are also wondering when they will start seeing perp walks for all the fraudulent activity they are certain is out there.
Then there are those of us taking a wait-and-see attitude. A few conservative Democrats, perhaps most independents, and that part of the Republican party that has not fallen into the cult of Trump. I reside in this camp – a conservative-leaning Libertarian who never voted for Trump or his Democratic challengers. I hope the effort is wildly successful. I am convinced you could find a trillion dollars in annual spending cuts. I have no doubt this would be painful for some, but we are on an unsustainable financial trajectory as a nation.
I am also in the camp that believes we do not have a revenue problem (tax rates are high enough at all income levels, though reforming the system would be a good thing). We have a spending problem. Not just waste and fraud, but spending on programs that should not be part of the federal government's mission.
I would be happy (thrilled, really) if they found a way to reduce spending by half a trillion dollars or even a third of a trillion. That could put us on a path to eventually achieving a balanced budget. I would also like to see an improved ability to find fraud, root it out, and prosecute the fraudsters.
Given the scope of the problem, an aggressive approach seems appropriate, but some changes also seem appropriate, given the chaos we experienced in the first 100 days.
First, as much respect as I have for him, after his 130-day appointment as a “special government employee,” Elon Musk should return to his day jobs. As I write this, he has announced he will step back next month and focus on Tesla. His involvement has been inspirational to those involved in DOGE and Trump acolytes. But his value to the effort has run its course, especially on the PR front.
Second, workforce reductions should be undertaken in a more orderly fashion. Terminating probationary employees and others as a cost-saving measure while claiming they were not “performing” at the high level expected is demeaning and inappropriate. Doing so without considering and addressing the implications is chaotic.
Third, with some exceptions, the President is responsible for spending approved funds, not determining what is approved. There are valid legal questions about what appropriated funds the President can refuse to spend. Absent Congressional action, many of the spending reductions will be rejected by the courts. The President and his party are missing an opportunity to have a formal and national discussion on a range of spending issues, a debate that would likely benefit them politically.
It is expected they will soon submit a “rescission” package to Congress to stop around $9 billion in spending for USAID, the State Department, NPR, and PBS. This is a start, but also a drop in the bucket of what could ultimately be proposed. It does make sense that relatively small rescission packages would be used to ensure one proposal does not spoil a large spending reduction. I hope to see more of these and look forward to the debate on individual requests.
Fourth, direct congressional action is also important. Without it, some of the administration's efforts will be rejected by the judicial system. And so far, the Republican Congress has not stepped up. The upcoming “big, beautiful bill” should be informed by whatever has been found and documented so far. The issues and proposals should be rationally debated by Congress, not just screamed about. The best way to avoid spending is not by executive order but by a Congressional bill signed by the President.
Whatever your political persuasion, let’s hope Congress steps up and does its job.
David Butler is a husband, father, grandfather, business executive, entrepreneur, and political observer.
The World Vaccine Congress Washington is held at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, April 23, 2025
WASHINGTON—A vaccine policy expert challenged attendees of the World Vaccine Congress Washington to imagine a deadly disease spreading in various places around the country. We have the tools to stop it, but lawmakers were instead debating whether or not to use them.
In fact, that describes what is currently happening across the United States, according to Rehka Lakshmanan, M.H.A.
“Science is not a democracy,” said Lakshmanan, chief strategy officer of the Immunization Partnership, a non-profit that focuses on education and advocacy for immunizations.
Rehka Lakshmanan gives her lecture, “Anti-vaccine rhetoric in legislature,” at the World Vaccine Congress Washington, April 23, 2025.(ErinDrumm/Medill New Service).
And yet, since 2017, state legislatures around the country have been treating the science behind vaccinations as if it were debatable.
Legislation in some state capitols and skepticism towards vaccines by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have contributed to doubts about vaccines in the United States. Kennedy formerly chaired the anti-vaccine non-profit Children’s Health Defense and recently called autism an “epidemic,” claiming environmental factors caused it in a pressconference. But at the World Vaccine Congress Washington in the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, organizers and experts wrestled with the increasing politicization of vaccines.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Texas, where the Immunization Partnership is based, is the epicenter of the current measles outbreak. According to the Texas Department of Health and Human Services, 627 measles cases have been confirmed in Texas since late January.
Kennedy spoke out in favor of the measles vaccines after meeting with two families in Texas who lost children as a result of the measles outbreak.
“The most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine,” Kennedy said in a post on X.
A panel at the World Vaccine Congress, “Are we doing enough with regards to funding safety science to foster trust in vaccines?” discussed political rhetoric surrounding vaccines.
“We need to find some common ground here. And we can try to yell louder, but they have the microphone right now,” said Daniel Salmon, director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “It shouldn’t be to fund terrible studies that confirm hypotheses that some people believe. It should be really high-quality, rigorous science, and let the findings be what they must.”
Salmon encouraged finding moments for cooperation even when that’s difficult. Other panelists were skeptical of finding common ground because of Secretary Kennedy’s past claims and his recent hiring of David Geier, who has tied vaccines to autism, as a data analyst at the Department of Health and Human Services.
“This is not the time to be trusting,” said Amy Pisani, chief executive officer of Vaccinate Your Family. “They don’t have any respect for institutions of higher learning or researchers that have credible backgrounds.”
While speakers at the conference differed in their opinions on how to approach the current presidential administration, they agreed that vaccine science should continue improving despite the fraught politics.
“Vaccine legislation introduced in state legislatures is the canary in the coal mine in terms of what we can potentially see in terms of a breakdown of policies in our states and across the country,” Lakshmanan said of the future of vaccines in U.S. politics.
Erin Drumm is a reporter for the Medill News Service covering politics. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2024 with a BA in American Studies and is now a graduate student at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism specializing in politics, policy and foreign affairs.
