This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy where we demonstrate the link between the administration’s sweeping executive actions and their roots in the authoritarian blueprint, Project 2025, and show how these actions harm individuals and families throughout the country.
Our public education system is under attack. On March 20, after only seven weeks in office and without input or approval from Congress, President Trump issued an executive order instructing the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and give the states sole responsibility for educating our nation’s children.”
The U.S. Congress created the Department of Education in 1979, and its leader, the Secretary of Education, is a member of the President's cabinet. By directing changes that compromise the department’s ability to function, Trump's March 20 order attempts to circumvent the requirement that only Congress may approve the department’s closure. This move takes a page from the Project 2025 playbook, which calls for the department’s elimination.
At the same time, and without any apparent recognition of the irony, the administration has directed school districts to radically limit what our children learn, threatening to withhold funds from public schools if they fail to verify that they have eliminated all programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. This transforms Project 2025’s goal of obliterating any mention of diversity, equity, or inclusion from federal policy.
On April 3, a department memo sent to public education officials across the country indicated that failure to comply would result in loss of the funds provided to schools under Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a move that would hit hardest those schools with high percentages of students of color or from low-income families. The administration has also rolled back school discipline guidelines announced by President Obama, which included recommendations to promote nondiscriminatory practices and training— another harmful move given that over two-thirds of students suspended, expelled and arrested in public schools are Black and brown.
Why This Matters
Gutting the Department of Education’s workforce harms families: When resources and support for public education at the local level are wildly uneven and often discriminatory, federal support can help level the playing field. The Education Department can help ensure that students can access classes and programs that might not otherwise be available. Eliminating the department would ensure that, in a land of equality, some students have the resources they need to succeed while others do not.
In a devastating step towards dismantling the agency, the administration fired approximately a third of its workforce. As Jessica Tang, president of the Massachusetts American Federation of Teachers, stated, “Withdrawing funding in schools across the country is . . . a cruel attempt to cause chaos and destruction . . .. These cuts will disproportionately harm those most in need of services—students with disabilities and low-income students," Tang said. "The federal education agenda is nothing short of a dismantling of our ability to provide a fair and equal public education.”
Planned changes limit parents’ access and civil rights enforcement: The administration also plans to relocate the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and has closed OCR offices nationwide. This means that parents seeking federal review of school district decisions regarding their children’s individual education and accommodation plans would need DOJ support for their claims, an unlikely result, as DOJ has already made clear that its role is to zealously defend the President's agenda.
Absent that support, families would be left to navigate and litigate their own claims, an option likely unaffordable to most.
Funding cuts make it harder for students to get an equal education: Federally funded student loans also help remove barriers to higher education at a time when tuition is rising. Almost 60 percent of the Education Department's $268 billion budget in 2023 was allocated to federal loans, the federal work-study program, and Pell grants, which help roughly one-third of U.S. undergraduates afford college by providing federal loans.
Dismantling the Department makes it easier for unlawful discrimination to prevent students from fully participating in school. The Department supports programs that supplement state and local funding for low-achieving children, particularly in low-income neighborhoods, as well as funding for students protected under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which helps cover special education costs. Cutting these programs jeopardizes the rights of 7 million special education students to a fair and appropriate education. Cutting staff also makes it harder for the Department to carry out its mandates to oversee civil rights enforcement in schools and under laws prohibiting discrimination of sex or race.
Administration policies aim to whitewash history: The administration’s actions lead us down a path that threatens the First Amendment free-speech rights of teachers and students, and chills the candid exchange of ideas, which is essential to learning. The administration appears to be focusing on a concern that white students would feel threatened or uncomfortable if questions of race were even discussed - although the administration has struggled to define what conduct or program would violate its interpretation of civil rights laws. For example, Education Secretary Linda McMahon has said that schools should be allowed to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr., but she has been less clear when asked whether classes could talk about Ruby Bridges, who, as a six-year-old girl, stood up to segregationists, or the 1921 massacre of Black citizens in Tulsa, Oklahoma. What about Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, or Juneteenth?
Black history is American history. All students should learn about the compromises that were made when the Constitution was drafted to unify the nation—including the decision to preserve the institution of slavery, which profoundly altered U.S. history. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, often referred to as Civil War or civil rights amendments, directed states to emancipate slaves, to address "the badges and incidents" of slavery, to guarantee equal protection under the law, and to prohibit laws denying or abridging a citizen’s right to vote based on color. Prior to these amendments, only propertied white male citizens had the right to vote. The primary goal of these amendments was to redress our history of racial discrimination against Black people. Understanding this history is a critical part of a basic education.
Takeaways:
It is disingenuous to say that the goal of dismantling the Department of Education is to return local control of education to states and to promote parental autonomy. Ending federal oversight of education would lead us down a dangerous path, opening the door to a return to the Jim Crow era, when laws, customs, and schools enforced racial inequality. In defending Florida educational policies restricting how the history and impact of racism can be taught, Governor Ron DeSantis gaslit the public by stating that some Blacks actually benefited from slavery as they were able to develop “job skills.” Similar efforts would erase iconic names and important events from the historical record.
The administration is effectively taking a wrecking ball to public education and, in doing so, threatens the future of our most vulnerable resource—our children. This campaign has been described as the “gutting of the system from the inside,” with the ideological goal of not just weakening public education but eliminating it altogether and replacing it with a patchwork of private voucher schools and deregulated magnet and charter chains. This is the opposite of standing up for equal opportunity and would set the nation back at a time when the overwhelming majority of Americans want to see it move forward.
The Hon. Jay Blitzman is a retired Massachusetts juvenile court justice and former Executive Director of Massachusetts Advocates for Children, a Law school instructor, and a youth justice consultant. Judge Blitzman teaches at Harvard, Northeastern, Boston College and New England Boston College Law Schools and is a faculty member of the Center for Law, Brain & Behavior (CLBB-Massachusetts General Hospital-Harvard Medical School). Blitzman is a volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy.
Photo provided
Alfonso Saldaña entered political activism during the early years of the Obama administration, motivated by a sense of optimism for real change in healthcare reform, addressing economic inequality, and reducing corporate influence over politics.
“I was excited when he won,” he said. “I thought things were going to get fixed.”
It didn’t take Saldaña long to see how private interests would interfere with the same system issues he thought he was helping fix.
Years later, that reality hit close to home. A powerful explosion at a nearby SpaceX facility in Texas went largely underreported. Saldaña wasn’t surprised.
“They have the money to cover it up,” he said. “That’s what corporate personhood looks like.”
He is now co-director of Move to Amend, a national grassroots coalition formed in 2009 in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The group advocates for a constitutional amendment that would assert two key principles: that constitutional rights belong only to natural persons, and that political spending is not protected as a form of free speech.
The amendment, known in Congress as House Joint Resolution 54, has garnered more than 60 co-sponsors and has been endorsed by over 800 organizations nationwide. At the local level, over 725 municipalities have passed resolutions in support.
Amend's focus is structural. Rather than pursue campaign finance reforms through statute, the group is working to change the underlying legal framework that enables corporations and other entities to spend unlimited funds in elections.
“I realized that lasting change requires not just electing the right leaders but dismantling the systems that prevent progress,” Saldaña said. “Like corporate personhood and the flood of money in politics.”
His counterpart, co-director Jennie Spanos, came to the movement from a background in journalism. While reporting in northwest Florida during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, she witnessed firsthand the effects on her own community.
After the Citizens United ruling in 2010, she began volunteering with Move to Amend and later joined the national staff.
“A lot of people don’t recognize or realize that corporations have these alienable rights,” said Sopranos. “A win is when we go into a space that we haven’t been before, and they’ve already started understanding this issue.”
Amend's proposed language differs from other constitutional reform efforts in that it mandates, rather than permits, regulation of political spending. The amendment would also clarify that corporations and other artificial entities do not hold constitutional rights, a position the group argues is necessary to prevent future court rulings that further insulate private power.
Spanos said public support has grown significantly, backed by more than 800 organizational endorsers and over 500,000 petition signers mobilized in support of the amendment.
“Recently, organizations that have come on have not only endorsed the We the People amendment, but they have taken it on as part of their strategic plan to get it passed,” said Spanos.
She pointed to Veterans for Peace, an official endorser that now incorporates the issue of corporate power into its broader advocacy. In 2024, the group partnered with Move to Amend for a Walk to End Corporate Rule, linking their anti-war platform to the effort to confront the outsized influence of corporations in U.S. politics and policy.
While the organization operates with a small staff, it supports a nationwide network of volunteers. It employs a horizontal leadership model and consensus-based decision-making, reflecting the democratic values it seeks to promote.
Although Move to Amend has built momentum at the grassroots level, the group still faces institutional pushback. Spanos cited a court decision in Minnesota that upheld constitutional protections for corporations, even as advocates tried to restrict foreign influence in elections.
“There was a case in Minnesota about foreign spending, and the court said, well, these corporations have constitutional rights,” she said. “That’s why we need this amendment.”
As Move to Amend marks 15 years, its leaders emphasize that the campaign is about more than a single amendment. “It’s about political education and about connecting the dots,” Spanos said. “We’re talking about how power works.”
Both co-directors say the movement’s success depends on long-term public engagement. “It’s a marathon,” Spanos said. “Not a sprint.”
Angeles Ponpa is a graduate student at Northwestern Medill in the Politics, Policy, and Foreign Affairs specialization, and a Fulcrum summer intern.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
Anti-gerrymandering protest
President Donald Trump is actively urging Texas lawmakers to redraw congressional districts in what’s fast becoming a national showdown over electoral fairness. If successful, the effort could yield five additional safe Republican seats — boosting the GOP’s control to nearly 80% of Texas’s 38-member congressional delegation.
Texas already ranks among the worst offenders in the country for gerrymandered districts. As The Fulcrum reported in December 2024, two of its congressional maps are textbook cases in manipulated representation. The latest maneuver threatens to deepen that problem.
Sam Wang, director of the Electoral Innovation Lab, framed the danger bluntly:
“People think of gerrymanders as consisting of funny-shaped individual districts. But that’s not true… A clever expert with mapping software can lasso voters wherever they live… Gerrymandering is not a single-district offense. The offense arises from a skew in the statewide plan as a whole.”
“Lassoing voters” is exactly what Trump is advocating. He’s pressed Texas Republicans to redraw five competitive Democratic districts into safe GOP territory, calling it a “very simple redrawing” with major consequences for the 2026 midterms. According to The Texas Tribune, Trump’s team is collaborating directly with state legislators to engineer the switch.
Speaking to reporters on July 15, Trump declared:
“Texas will be the biggest one. Just a simple redrawing — we pick up five seats.” He added: “There could be some other states — we’re going to get another three, or four or five in addition.”
His broader national strategy remains somewhat opaque, but several states are reportedly in play:
A Nationwide Tit-for-Tat looms on the horizon. Democrats are preparing their countermove. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has floated a bold response: redrawing maps to favor Democrats if Texas proceeds. "Two can play that game," he said, suggesting special sessions, ballot initiatives, or even constitutional amendments could pave the way for 5–7 new blue-leaning districts.
According to Politico, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has joined the conversation, meeting with California lawmakers to discuss strategic responses — including locking in safe Democratic seats through mid-cycle redistricting.
This battle might expand across the country as other blue states, such as New York and Illinois, consider putting mid-decade redistricting on the table.
One only has to look at Illinois to realize that both sides play the gerrymandering game. As reported in the Fulcrum in December, there’s a narrow strip of Illinois that is the worst example, the 13th district, which connects disparate pockets of Democratic voters in Champaign, Urbana, Decatur, Springfield, and East St. Louis. The district splits six counties, as well as multiple townships, cities, and even precincts, contributing to a 14-3
Analyst Khaled Shoucair called it “the most aggressive Democratic gerrymander in the country,” reducing GOP seats from five to three through creative vote allocation. As he put it:
“A large number of Republican votes are wasted — either packed into overwhelmingly Republican districts or diluted in Democratic strongholds.”
This is not just a turf war between parties — it’s an erosion of public trust. When only 10–15% of congressional districts are competitive, as is the case in the 119th Congress, the result is a landscape where 370 to 390 seats are virtual locks for one party. That’s roughly 85–90% of the House.
In non-competitive districts, general elections are perfunctory. Real contests happen in primaries — often shaped by low turnout and ideological extremism. Voters outside the dominant party feel powerless, their ballots reduced to symbolic gestures.
This moment demands attention. Gerrymandering is about nothing other than control. And when both parties distort district lines to preserve power, voters lose their voice. If our democracy is to survive, we must confront the consequences of a system where representation is predetermined and competition is the exception.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Each of us follows a unique destiny, even as we know we will each wind up dead one day. Some people afflicted with a life-ending disease keep it to themselves. They would rather soldier on as though everything were normal. Maybe they tell a trusted friend or two, but they don’t broadcast it. They prefer not to have to deal with the sometimes halting words of empathy from strangers. Many people don’t know what to say, so in some sense, the sick person is relieving others of the need to commiserate publicly. To find suitable words. They talk about the weather or the Chicago Cubs. Anything but disease and its cousin, death.
As someone whose life has followed an unconventional path, I felt it was important that when I was diagnosed with cancer of the tongue and lymph nodes, I not keep this to myself. I didn’t know the difficult path that lay ahead, but since all of my family had died, I knew that I would have to rely on the support of friends (my chosen family) to make it through it. After a brutal surgery to remove the cancerous parts of my tongue, the surgeon took nerves from my arm to reconstruct a new tongue. This was followed by 33 targeted radiation treatments that left me unable to swallow solid food and the loss of my taste buds. Doctors thought I might regain those abilities and sensations, but alas! They have never returned.
It's been 5 years now since my diagnosis. While I struggle with a poor quality of life, I know that many cancer patients don’t get additional years. So I quietly go about my day, reading, sleeping, and walking. Grateful that I can still appreciate the flight of a butterfly on my patio or the rustle of the wind in the trees.
I was formerly an American diplomat. Mainly in the Middle East. The United Arab Emirates, Syria, Morocco, Lebanon. Before that, I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Chad. Others have become diplomats after having served in the Peace Corps. Others have lived with HIV for decades. Others have suffered through cancer treatments. But that combination of Chad, the Middle East, HIV, and cancer makes my story perhaps more of a one-off. And because of that, I felt it was important to share my story more publicly. To document the roller coaster of emotions when confronted by your mortality every time you walk into a doctor’s office.
Disease gives us some distance from the quotidian tasks that make up most people’s lives. Not being able to eat is okay if I forget to drink my daily smoothie. I’ll drink it tomorrow. I may lack energy, but with no demands on my time—except for making regular doctor visits—I can opt to sleep and dream about another success in another place and time. Sometimes I have nightmares where people who have treated me badly in the past are doing it again to me. But when I wake, I realize that it is just a bad dream and no one is hounding me today except for the cancer cells hiding somewhere inside me.
Because my energy is low, some friends have counseled me not to pay attention to the ongoing attacks on our American democracy and way of life. They say I should conserve my limited energy. But I refuse. In whatever time I have left, I will have to speak out and resist what they are doing to the country I have served and loved all my life.
The fact that spokespersons for the Trump Administration continue to say that the immigration raids are rounding up the “worst of the worst” is clearly not true. Legal residents without criminal records who have been working and paying taxes for decades are being rounded up and trucked off to horrible places like Alligator Alcatraz in the Everglades in Florida. They are given no due process. The conditions are horrible, and politicians make jokes about alligators having immigrants for lunch. This is not something to be laughing about. Lives are being destroyed, and we must stand up and say this is not the America that used to be a beacon on the hill to others in the world over as a place of respect for people and their rights and their ability to pursue happiness in freedom.
And so I speak not only because I can, but because I feel I must. In illness, in aging, and protest, we live most fully when we refuse to look away. The measure of my life isn’t only in its length or comfort, but in my stubborn insistence to raise my voice against indifference and cruelty.
The conscience of our country once knew better -and perhaps, in the time I have left, my voice can help it remember.
Michael Varga is the author of “ Under Chad’s Spell." He was a Foreign Service officer, serving in Dubai, Damascus, Casablanca, and Toronto
