America’s Constitution was meant to unify the new nation and help avert a civil war over the thorniest of divisions: slavery. Oops! In retrospect, that charter proved much too ambiguous, lending itself to both proslavery and abolitionist causes.
In this season’s premiere, historian Liz Varon discusses the deep roots of polarization in the United States — with Will, Siva and an auditorium full of their students. The Union may have survived, Varon says, but its bloodiest war still echoes.
The most important question in American politics today is whether Donald Trump will respect court orders. Judges have repeatedly ruled against his administration.
But will he listen?
In America, the courts—not the president or Congress—resolve disputes and, in the process, define the Constitution and federal laws. This principle is known as judicial review. It arose in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, when Chief Justice John Marshall declared that judges define the law: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
It’s been this way ever since.
Following court orders allows expectations to be set, disputes to be resolved, decisions to be honored, and litigants to move on. This is especially important when, like today, political passions run high. Without a deep and powerful tradition in America of respecting court orders as the last word, disputes would drag on, multiply, and intensify.
Indeed, if we don't all agree on who has the last word, then no one does. And if no one does, then we won’t have a coherent, stable or effective legal system.
Donald Trump cares little about America’s legal traditions, including judicial review. He just wants to get his way. He’s already pushing the limits, arguably violating a judge’s March 15 order to return two planes carrying deportees Trump alleges are Venezuelan gang members. And Vice President JD Vance, for his part, recently suggested on X (formerly Twitter) that the administration wouldn’t follow certain court orders: “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This attitude is disturbing to many, including Chief Justice John Roberts. In his 2024 year-end report, Roberts warned that officials “from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.”
Some of Trump’s biggest supporters agree. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, for example, recently said that, “I think you can dislike the court’s opinion and think they’re wrong on the substance, and criticize them for that, and you certainly can vigorously appeal … I think outright, sort of just like, ‘Oh, we’re just going to ignore the decision completely?’ That, I think you can’t do.”
Having the power to resolve disputes reposed in the judiciary isn’t just blind tradition. It makes good sense. Judges restrain the presidency. They check administrative agencies. And they keep Congress in line. Under the Constitution, moreover, judges sit for life upon good behavior. They don’t campaign or run for reelection and are therefore politically insulated. Yet because judges must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, democratic accountability undergirds their selection.
The result is a judiciary that tends to be more rational and principled than the executive and legislative branches. “The Judiciary,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, “has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” While the judiciary has made mistakes, compared to the political branches (often a low bar, admittedly) it has exercised its judgment well. It does so today with consistent rulings rejecting Trump’s overreaching executive actions.
America’s constitution, legislation, and judicial opinions set laws on paper. However, respect for the rule of law, in people’s hearts and minds, is the necessary precondition for the legal system to work. This starts with respecting court orders. Judicial review has been a bedrock tradition of American democracy for more than two centuries. It has been tested in great legal battles over the separation of powers, federalism, abortion, desegregation, and even presidential powers during wartime. And it has survived: people on the losing side of cases, including presidents, have uniformly respected court orders.
The question looming over the country today is whether Donald Trump will, too.
William Cooper is the author of How America Works … And Why It Doesn’t
President Trump once famously said that he likes poorly educated people. His policies run the risk of creating more of them in the U.S.
Education should be about giving students the tools to build their future, not scoring political points. Yet, Donald Trump’s education agenda prioritizes ideology over student success. His proposals, from eliminating the Department of Education to defunding public schools and restricting academic freedom, undermine the very foundation of education.
Instead of expanding access and improving quality, these policies would harm the most vulnerable students, widen inequality, and weaken the economy. Rather than dismantling public education, we should strengthen it—making it more inclusive, effective, and future-focused. A weaker school system helps no one except those seeking to use education as a political weapon.
For years, far-right groups like the Heritage Foundation have pushed the idea that universities are breeding grounds for leftist ideology (Heritage Foundation). Now, Trump and his allies have extended this fight to K-12 schools, advocating for drastic policies such as eliminating the Department of Education, which would shift control entirely to states and create massive disparities in funding and school quality. They also want to divert public school funding to private and religious institutions through vouchers, stripping public schools of essential resources (The New Yorker). In addition, they aim to control what students learn by banning discussions of race, gender, and diversity while rolling back civil rights protections, making it even harder for marginalized students to receive an equal education. While Trump claims these moves will “fix” education, they would instead turn schools into ideological battlegrounds and limit students' ability to think critically and engage with the world around them. After all, the goal of education is to prepare students for real life—not a political purity test.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Trump and his conservative allies have long argued that eliminating the Department of Education would improve schools. In reality, this move would devastate students who rely on federal programs for access to quality education. Without the department, Pell Grants and subsidized loans could disappear, making college unaffordable for millions (Investopedia). Special education services would weaken, leaving students with disabilities without the necessary support. Civil rights protections would erode, exposing minority, LGBTQ+, and disabled students to greater discrimination with fewer avenues for recourse (Brookings Institution).
The last Republican administration before Trump, George W. Bush’s, attempted to address these inequalities through national standards under No Child Left Behind. However, after 9/11, education reform lost momentum. Without federal oversight, gaps in funding, special education, and teacher pay would widen, leaving millions of students behind (National Public Radio). Wealthy states would maintain well-funded schools, while poorer states—many of which already struggle with underfunded schools—would fall even further behind, worsening existing inequalities. The idea that every state will suddenly prioritize education out of sheer goodwill is as naive as assuming kids will voluntarily do their homework without a deadline.
Trump’s push to defund public education is just as harmful. By promoting school vouchers, he prioritizes private and religious institutions over the public school system that serves the majority of American children. Redirecting public funds would lead to larger class sizes, fewer teachers, outdated materials, and deteriorating school buildings (Express News). Rural students, who often lack access to private schools, would suffer the most. The result would be a widening educational quality and opportunity gap, where wealthier families benefit while lower-income students are left behind. Despite its flaws, the U.S. public school system remains a global leader, a driver of economic growth, and one of the country’s best tools for upward mobility. Gutting it serves political agendas, not students.
Beyond defunding, Trump’s education policies would impose rigid ideological restrictions on what can be taught. His agenda includes banning subjects deemed “woke,” such as systemic racism and gender studies, which would limit students’ exposure to complex social issues and diverse perspectives. His plans to cut funding and alter accreditation standards to punish universities for perceived ideological bias threaten academic freedom. State-imposed curriculum changes would restrict what students can learn, discouraging independent thought and critical analysis. Education should foster curiosity and intellectual growth, not enforce a single political viewpoint. If students only learn what politicians approve, they might as well be handed textbooks with half the pages ripped out.
The long-term consequences of Trump’s education policies would be disastrous. By cutting federal funding and favoring privatization, his approach would deepen inequality, leaving struggling communities without the resources to educate the next generation. A weaker education system would also damage the economy by reducing research and workforce development investment. Cutting university research funding would slow innovation in fields like medicine, technology, and engineering, while fewer skilled graduates would make the U.S. less competitive globally. Employers would struggle to fill high-skill jobs, ultimately leading to economic stagnation.
Instead of dismantling education, policymakers should focus on real solutions that strengthen and modernize the system. Investing in early childhood education has been proven to improve long-term student outcomes. Increasing teacher pay and support would help attract and retain high-quality educators. Expanding student aid and loan forgiveness would make higher education more accessible, ensuring a stronger and better-prepared workforce. Strengthening vocational and technical training would provide alternative career paths for students who don’t pursue traditional four-year degrees. Bridging the digital divide would ensure that all students, regardless of income or location, have access to essential learning technology. The priority should always be to create an education system that prepares students for the future, not one that serves the political ambitions of those in power. Maybe, just maybe, we should focus on teaching kids skills they’ll actually use—like how to understand a mortgage or spot misinformation—rather than filtering their education through a political lens.
Trump’s education policies have nothing to do with improving schools—they are about scoring points to fit a political agenda. The consequences would be dire: fewer student opportunities, a weaker economy, and deeper inequality. Instead of tearing down public education, America must invest in a system that empowers students, promotes independent thought, and prepares the next generation to succeed. The battle over education isn’t just about schools—it’s about ensuring the country remains strong, competitive, and fair for all.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.
In the three months since the second Trump administration took over, American education has faced drastic changes. On March 20, President Trump signed an executive order dismantling the 46-year-old Department of Education, directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to do so using “the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”
A coalition of advocacy groups, including the National Education Association and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, filed a lawsuit over the new order on March 24..
In an article published by the Fulcrum, the NEA said, “Despite Trump’s rhetoric that the deferral Department of Education is 'a big con job,' the agency’s achievements say otherwise. Its programs have increased equity in education from pre-kindergarten through college for all Americans, regardless of race, religion, gender, disability, and socioeconomic status.”
The agency also witnessed a 50% reduction in its workforce, which McMahon said was intended to increase efficiency and accountability.
However, perhaps a larger change that educational institutions are still grappling with is the federal government's ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion practices. This began with a January 21 executive order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”
This was followed by a Dear Colleague letter advising federally funded schools that decisions or benefits made on the basis of race or nationality were considered a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
A statement released by the Department of Education on February 15 gave institutions two weeks to “cease using race preferences and stereotypes as a factor in their admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and beyond.”
An inconsistent and confusing landscape of American education emerges as universities and schools examine and amend their policies while others resist.
President of the American Association of Colleges and Universities Lynn Pasquarella called the orders “unprecedented and surprising.”
“We knew from President Trump's first administration that he was intent upon dismantling DEI. But what we didn't expect was for his administration to position higher education as the enemy, and to attempt to dismantle higher education itself,” Pasquarella said when speaking to The Fulcrum prior to the March 20 order.
Pasquerella said the Dear Colleague letter has no legal standing and is therefore not binding.
“His [Trump] administration has framed this in terms of their reading of Students for Fair Admission Vs. Harvard. But the Supreme Court didn’t dictate the removal of DEI initiatives. It’s broad, vague, and overreaching in terms of governmental intrusion into academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and governance at college campuses.”
Since January 2023, The Chronicle of Higher Education has tracked changes among public colleges regarding DEI and offices, jobs, training, and diversity statements as responses to bills, political pressure, and legislation. The tracker has noted changes at 270 campuses across 38 states, with efforts ramping up since the new administration began.
University of North Carolina Asheville responded to Trump’s January 21 order by amending its degree requirements, which the Asheville Watchdog first reported. In a memo published on February 5, UNC System Senior Vice President for Legal Affairs & General Counsel Andrew Tripp made clear that all “all general education requirements and major-specific requirements mandating completion of course credits related to diversity, equity, and inclusion” were suspended.
Megan Underhill is department chair of sociology at UNC Asheville and an inequality-oriented scholar. Underhill’s courses, which examine racial and class inequality, were previously mandatory but are now electives. Underhill said students taking such courses were told they could drop the class.
“Within the state of North Carolina, there are some schools that don’t offer diversity-intensive courses, so there hasn’t been a change to their departments, and there are others where courses are being flagged,” Underhill said.
Underhill expressed worry about what’s to come and greater scrutiny to all courses, including electives, and the professors teaching them, but said she is “going to keep doing what I’m doing.”
“The reason my university developed the courses [on race] was in response to student demands to have a more relevant education. This mandate is in direct opposition to a curriculum students advocated for several years ago.”
In May 2023, the University of North Carolina System Board of Governors voted to eliminate DEI offices and spending. This decision contrasts with those of states such as Texas and Florida, where legislation cut DEI.
Underhill said Asheville’s campus once had a multicultural center.
“Universities can make whatever claims they want about how they continue to be places for everybody, but when you’re getting rid of spaces specifically designed to create community and create an oasis for students who are a minority, I don’t think they can claim the university is a safe space,” Underhill said.
The Department of Education announced the opening of Title VI investigations into 45 universities a month after the Dear Colleague letter was published. The department alleges these institutions violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act by partnering with the Ph.D. Project, a non-profit organization that provides support to members of underrepresented groups earning PhD degrees in business.
The fear of funding cuts is real, especially after the DOE cancelled $400 million worth of grants and contracts to Columbia University for failing to counter anti-Semitism on its campus. The result of medical research on cancer is being suspended or terminated.
Ariel Halle, a third-year PhD candidate in the Infectious Diseases Division at Northwestern University working on HIV research, spoke to The Fulcrum about how funding matters and the ending of DEI programs. Halle is also the advocacy chair for the Chicago Graduate Student Association, which supports graduate students attending Northwestern’s Chicago campus.
“I think HIV research has a lot of LGBTQ scientists and there's a lot of diversity in the infectious disease department in terms of what sort of types of scientists feel like they have a home here. A researcher had several grants canceled because they focused on transgender people.”
Halle said DEI-related language on Northwestern's websites is important for current students, employees, and prospective ones to see Northwestern as a welcoming environment.
Northwestern has made changes to its website. The Daily Northwestern reported that the library’s website no longer mentions the word diversity but “the entire Northwestern community.” The Women’s Center website now says, “Northwestern is currently reviewing its policies and programs to ensure we meet all federal and state laws and requirements.”
The Attorneys General of 14 states, including Illinois, California, New York, and the District of Columbia, issued guidance regarding DEI programs to counter the federal government’s executive orders and instructions.
“Educational institutions should continue to foster diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility among their student bodies,” the statement published on March 5 read. It also addressed the lack of legal standing of these documents. More importantly, it answered several questions, from the inclusion of diverse language in mission statements to programs at K-12 schools that ensure a safe and supportive environment for students.
“I think the advantage that California has in terms of complying is that we already have laws that say you cannot affirmatively provide an extra step up because of your race,” said Carol Kocivar, former President of the California State PTA.
California ended affirmative action in 1996 due to Proposition 209, which bans racial preferences in employment and education.
Kocivar said this has impacted enrollment and, therefore, the funding schools receive.
“Our history is very clear that there was racism. We had slavery. We had redlining. And teaching our students our history is not racism. It’s the history they should know so they can avoid racism in the future. Teaching them about their own cultures strengthens their identity and their understanding of their place in the community. It is not a threat to other people. So, my personal sense is his [Trump] is a total overreach in California.”
Malavika Ramakrishnan is a freelance journalist covering politics and culture.
After losing my kidney to cancer, I made a disturbing discovery: household air pollution might have contributed to my illness.
According to researchers, plastics in our air and household items could be linked to kidney problems. While I may never identify the exact cause of my cancer, research shows that indoor air pollution is responsible for an estimated three to five million premature deaths worldwide each year. It’s connected to heart disease, stroke, and cancer.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be taking action to protect everyone from toxic chemicals indoors. In February 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin identified clean air, land, and water as top priorities. However, by March 2025, the EPA’s mission had shifted to making cars cheaper, homes less expensive to heat, and businesses more affordable. Yet even without these misguided goals, the EPA lacks adequate testing and regulations and allows manufacturers to use new chemicals without testing until harm is proven; this helps manufacturers by putting the rest of us at risk.
The EPA must establish a national Clean Indoor Air Act (CIAA) to combat indoor air pollution and require testing and regulation of toxic chemicals before they enter the market. A national CIAA could be cost-effective, reduce illness, and save lives, ensuring a healthier and safer future for everyone. Just as the Clean Air Act (CAA) has been crucial in addressing outdoor pollution, a similar approach is necessary for indoor air quality.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The CAA has effectively regulated emissions since 1967, saving over $2 trillion in healthcare costs while providing benefits 30 times greater than its expenditures. Similarly, improving indoor air quality can reduce illnesses and deaths. However, unlike outdoor air pollution, no federal laws currently address polluted indoor air, highlighting the need for a similar approach.
In contrast to the EPA’s inaction, states like California have proactively addressed these issues. California identified 874 toxic chemicals that can cause cancer, disabilities, or reproductive harm. These chemicals are commonly found in household products like food, furniture, and cosmetics. The air inside our homes can be up to ten times more toxic than outside air, leading to serious health issues like respiratory problems and chronic diseases. Air pollution is a significant cause of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer, with particulate matter being the second leading risk factor after smoking.
Reducing the use of solid fuels for cooking and heating has helped, but using new synthetic materials in flooring, carpets, and wall coverings has increased indoor pollution. These materials are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), harmful gases in some household products released by chemicals. VOCs are harmful particles and gases that cause health problems like eye irritation, nausea, and cancer. The American Lung Association warns that VOCs are the primary cause of poor indoor air quality and can harm our health.
In 2025, France banned toxic polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) from cosmetics, ski wax, and clothing, creating an opportunity for the United States to take similar action. PFAs are also known as “forever chemicals.” Some states, like California, have acted to regulate these chemicals, and the EPA should do the same. In January 2025, California banned twenty-four toxic “forever chemicals” in personal care products, cosmetics, and clothing. These chemicals include mercury and formaldehyde, which are PFAs.
Although the EPA has issued some guidelines for certain toxic chemicals, it must do more. A 2024 study shows the need for a nationwide act to protect public health and indoor environments.
A National Clean Indoor Air Act (CIAA) could be cost-effective, reduce illness, and save lives. The CIAA must require testing and regulations for human health safety for 1) new toxic chemicals before being allowed into the marketplace and 2) existing toxic chemicals to be limited or removed from the marketplace, as testing dictates.
While the EPA starts regulating, there are ways to identify some of the chemicals in our indoor spaces. The Consumer Products Information Database offers information on its website about chemicals in everyday products and how they might affect our health. Clearya, a mobile app, helps buyers scan labels for toxic ingredients in personal and household products when shopping. Some of this is in our hands. But we must hold our leaders—and the EPA—accountable for the air we breathe. Clearly, they have work to do.
Carole Rollins has been an environmental educator for 35 years. She has a Ph.D. in environmental science and has taught environmental education at the University of California at Berkeley. Carole has received the White House Millennium Green Award and the National Endowment for the Arts Public Education and Awareness Award.
