Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.
This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.
Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.
The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”
So far, the heavy legislating has happened at the state level, with a number introducing legislation aimed at increasing parental involvement, transparency and accountability. There is a growing movement for parents to have more control over and insight into their children's education. Proponents believe greater parental involvement can lead to better educational outcomes. Most laws proposed by states purport to center around increasing transparency in educational systems, ensuring parents are informed about what their children are being taught, how schools are run, and how decisions are made.
These legislative efforts are often a response to our broader social and political movements, driving for increased parental involvement and oversight in schools. For instance, conservative groups have been particularly vocal about lessons around critical race theory and gender education, pushing for more parental control to adjust school curricula to align with their personal views and values.
What states have passed a parental bill of rights?
Such laws generally outline specific rights for parents regarding their control and influence over their children’s upbringing, primarily in the context of education. Arizona’s House Bill 2732 in 2010 was the first in the current effort to define parental rights concerning children's education, upbringing, and health care. The law specifically includes a parent's right to direct their child's education, access school records and be informed about the curriculum.
Utah passed Parental Rights in Public Education in 2014, specifying certain rights of a parent or guardian of a student enrolled in a public school. Florida’s 2021 Parental Rights in Education gave parents control over their child's education, health care decisions and moral upbringing, including provisions for greater transparency in educational materials and school policies.
Texas enacted two bills in 2023: The first allows parents to access and review instructional materials; the second prohibits public school systems from possessing, acquiring and purchasing “harmful library material that is sexually explicit, pervasively vulgar, or educationally unsuitable.”
Many other states have proposed and enacted similar bills over the last decade.
What are the drawbacks to this movement?
Excessive interference in curriculum can undermine the expertise of educators and educational institutions, resulting in a fragmented educational experience for students, especially if parents with diverse views impose conflicting demands on schools. Schools will face increased administrative burdens to comply with the proposed transparency, find a middle ground and fulfill reporting requirements. This diverts time and resources away from direct educational activities, impacting overall school function.
Further, there is an argument that this type of legislation can lead to censorship of educational materials, particularly those related to controversial or sensitive topics such as sex education, race and gender identity. This can limit students' exposure to diverse perspectives and critical thinking opportunities. Allowing parents to opt their children out of certain lessons or activities can lead to inconsistencies in educational standards and experiences, affecting the overall quality and cohesiveness of student's education.
What would be the impact of Project 2025’s proposed federal Parental Bill of Rights?
The focus on parental rights could prioritize voices of more vocal or organized groups, potentially neglecting the needs and rights of minority or marginalized students and families. The federal legislation will likely result in increased legal disputes between parents and schools, which are costly and time-consuming, draining already limited school resources. Also, the implementation of these laws can exacerbate social and political divisions, particularly in communities with diverse views, leading to conflicts between parents, educators, and school boards, creating a contentious educational environment.
Balancing parental rights with the needs and expertise of educators is crucial to address these concerns effectively. While Project 2025’s initiative reflects a growing trend across the United States to formalize and expand parental rights in the context of education and child welfare, careful consideration is needed to ensure these rights do not hinder the educational process and overall student welfare.
More articles about Project 2025
- A cross-partisan approach
- An Introduction
- Rumors of Project 2025’s Demise are Greatly Exaggerated
- Department of Education
- Managing the bureaucracy
- Department of Defense
- Department of Energy
- The Environmental Protection Agency
- Education Savings Accounts
- Department of Veterans Affairs
- The Department of Homeland Security
- U.S. Agency for International Development
- Affirmative action
- A federal Parents' Bill of Rights
- Department of Labor
- Intelligence community
- Department of State
- Department of the Interior
- Federal Communications Commission
- A perspective from Europe
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Voting Rights Act
- Another look at the Federal Communications Commission
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.