A New York bill would require schools to teach about the Jan. 6 insurrection.
The bill calls for all K-12 students to be taught about the event, with the state determining how best to incorporate the events into history classes. Since 2021, public opinion on the U.S. Capitol attack has dulled because President Donald Trump and his supporters have downplayed it since then.
Asm. Charles Lavine, D-Glen Cove, the bill's sponsor, said it is important not to whitewash the facts.
"The problem with whitewashing history is that students in those states are not going to learn to be the critical thinkers that we really need in order to confront the great dilemmas that will face us in the future," Lavine contended.
Though initial polls found people equated the Capitol attack with an attack on democracy, some polls show people approve of Trump's actions. Many groups have teaching tools so educators can accurately answer students' questions about Jan. 6.
While the bill is relatively new, it has garnered positive feedback. It is under review by the Assembly's Education Committee.
The bill comes several weeks after President Donald Trump pardoned everyone prosecuted for participating in the Jan. 6 attack. Polls show most people disapprove of the pardons.
Lavine acknowledged one challenge for the bill is finding an impartial way to teach about a politically polarizing event, adding it will be left to the state's education experts.
"Those are the members of the Board of Regents, in consultation with the state's Education Department, to make the determination about what is taught particularly in subject matters," Lavine outlined. "What this bill simply does is add to a list of major subject areas that should be instructed in our public schools."
Along with the Capitol attack, the bill also calls on teachers to educate students about patriotism, citizenship, civic education, values and America's history with diversity and religious tolerance. Lavine noted one goal of the bill is to ensure children learn about good and bad parts of history, from slavery and the Holocaust to the Irish potato famine.
NY bill calls for K-12 teaching of Jan. 6 Capitol attack was originally published by the Public News Service and is shared with permission. Edwin J. Viera is a reporter and producer in North Tonawanda, New York.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.