Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Don't fail our children by abolishing the Department of Education

Department of Education building
J. David Ake/Getty Images

Robertson is a clinical associate professor at the Rory Meyers School of Nursing at New York University and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.

Imagine a school where a child grappling with anxiety or depression walks the halls without access to vital mental health support — no counselors, no programs, just in silence. This unsettling scenario could become a reality if Republican proposals to abolish the Department of Education gain traction, jeopardizing not only educational standards but the emotional well-being of millions of students.


As Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chair of the Appropriations Committee, warns, “Trump’s proposal to abolish the Department of Education may sound outrageous, yet it reflects a serious movement among many Republicans.” Whether or not Donald Trump takes office in 2025, it seems clear that Republicans in Washington will continue to attempt to do away with the Department of Education. If successful, this drastic action could disrupt the daily lives of millions of families, undermining essential support systems for our children.

Many families rely on the federal government to ensure their children receive a quality education, particularly in mental health resources. The Department of Education plays a vital role in promoting both academic excellence and the social-emotional well-being of students. It provides essential funding and guidance for programs that address the mental health needs of children and adolescents. Abolishing the department risks dismantling a crucial safety net that supports our youth during formative years.

Mental health issues among students are alarmingly prevalent. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, nearly one in five children ages 13 to 18 experiences a severe mental disorder at some point in their lives. Schools are often the first line of defense in identifying and addressing these issues, as they provide a structured environment where children spend a significant portion of their day. Without the support from the Department of Education, schools would struggle to navigate these challenges.

Relying solely on state responsibilities for mental health resources is a precarious proposition. States vary dramatically in their funding, priorities and ability to address mental health issues. While Connecticut ranks among the best states for access to mental health services for children, Texas is often cited as one of the worst, highlighting significant disparities in care across the country. This inconsistency means that a child’s access to mental health support would depend largely on their zip code, perpetuating inequality and leaving many students without the help they desperately need.

The lack of bipartisan support for federal initiatives underscores a significant divide in addressing mental health in education. While there is widespread agreement on the importance of mental health services, partisan politics often frame education funding as a contentious issue rather than a shared priority. This division can lead to inconsistent support for vital programs, with some lawmakers advocating for budget cuts instead of necessary investments. As a result, schools — especially those in underserved areas — face financial barriers that hinder their ability to hire counselors and implement effective mental health strategies.

Moreover, the Department of Education facilitates critical initiatives like the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program, which aims to improve access to mental health services in schools. These grants help schools hire counselors, provide training for staff and develop comprehensive mental health programs. Without federal support, like the recent announcement of $70 million in awards for school-based mental health services, many schools would struggle to implement effective mental health strategies.

The implications of this situation could be devastating. Imagine a child battling severe anxiety or depression, completely devoid of the support they desperately need during school hours. In such a scenario, teachers — often untrained in mental health crises — may feel overwhelmed and ill-equipped to respond effectively, leading to increased disciplinary issues as frustrated educators resort to punitive measures instead of compassionate interventions. This, in turn, can result in plummeting academic performance and a pervasive sense of alienation, creating a toxic school environment where bullying and social isolation thrive. As mental health deteriorates, some students may face feelings of hopelessness, and tragically, the lack of support could push vulnerable individuals toward self-harm or suicidal ideation. The long-term consequences perpetuate the already existing public health crisis, as untreated mental health issues wreak havoc on the lives of these children, impacting their relationships, families, career prospects and overall quality of life.

Furthermore, the Department of Education’s emphasis on mental health has raised awareness about the importance of social-emotional learning. Programs that educate school personnel on creating safe learning environments and teaching resilience, empathy and stress management skills are vital for developing well-rounded individuals. If these programs were to fade away, we would neglect the mental health of our students and compromise their long-term success as adults.

The proposal to abolish the Department of Education poses a grave threat to mental health resources in our schools. Rather than leaving the responsibility solely to states, we must recognize the essential role the federal government plays in ensuring equitable access to mental health support for all students. As we grapple with the realities of mental health in our youth, we cannot afford to dismantle the structures that support their well-being. The stakes are too high, and our children’s futures depend on the availability of these crucial resources.

Read More

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

Getty Images, Manu Vega

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

AI generated image

Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Need To Focus on Communication

Democrat Donkey phone operator

AI illustration

Democrats Need To Focus on Communication

The Democrats have a problem…I realize this isn’t a revelation, but I believe they’re boxed into a corner with limited options to regain their footing. Don’t get me wrong, the party could have a big win in the 2026 midterms with a backlash building against Trump and MAGA. In some scenarios, that could also lead to taking back the White House in 2028…but therein lies the problem.

In its second term, the Trump administration has severely cut government agencies, expanded the power of the Executive branch, enacted policies that will bloat the federal deficit, dismantled parts of the social safety net, weakened our standing in the world, and moved the US closer to a “pay for play” transactional philosophy of operating government that’s usually reserved for Third World countries. America has veered away from being the model emulated by other nations that aim to build a stable democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less