Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Americans may have voted to dismantle government, but they must not leave their children behind

Opinion

Americans may have voted to dismantle government, but they must not leave their children behind
Pallets of food, water and supplies staged to be delivered… | Flickr

A few weeks ago, in a windowless hotel ballroom in Washington, DC, I sat in a conference room full of school administrators from around the world as they received increasingly urgent messages about the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and began processing the devastating impact on the families they serve. Their stillness and silence made their shock, worry, and grief physically palpable: In the name of saving taxpayer dollars equal to less than the cost of a dozen bombers - and now in continued defiance of a court order - the Trump administration is intent on cuts that will strand thousands of American children in foreign countries, trigger international funding crises, and surrender diplomatic influence built through a program that has helped shape hearts and minds around the globe for decades.

A conference meant to be a gathering of colleagues planning for our students' future instead became a vigil of bewildered professionals trying to decode contradictory directives cascading from administration offices. The scene underlined how quickly "government efficiency" can shatter real lives.


The implications hit like aftershocks: roughly three thousand American children will suddenly be uprooted from their schools; their parents' legal status in foreign nations will evaporate; and many of these families who have no permanent homes in the U.S. or otherwise will be left adrift. A federal judge temporarily barred the agency from putting workers on leave as planned, agreeing that the move could create “irreparable harms” to USAID families, finances, and security overseas.

As a consultant who works with international schools serving American students abroad and the adult child of a family that served USAID for two decades, I understood their bewilderment. "There is no way that people in the U.S. can imagine what this means," one head of a school in western Europe told me, requesting anonymity. "For those of us who have lived abroad and educated the children of American diplomats, it's terrifying. This isn't just about USAID - it's about America's standing in the world and what happens when we abandon our posts."

It is also about the children.

USAID, a cornerstone of American diplomacy since 1961, currently has over 2,500 Americans on assignment in 60 countries. These public servants and their families carry America's promise across borders. In 2023 alone, they helped manage $40 billion in foreign assistance, pulling children from the depths of poverty, rushing aid to communities torn apart by disaster, and building the diplomatic bridges that make America safer and stronger. Since 2009, their maternal and child health programs have saved 4.6 million children and 200,000 women, protected 6 million lives through malaria prevention, and helped rebuild communities in crisis across the globe.

The children of USAID families belong to a unique tribe: those who choose to be citizens of the world rather than a single nation. Their lives abroad create a particular kind of vulnerability - frequent moves, distance from families, exposure to political violence - one that forges deep bonds across borders and cultures. I have seen how these school communities become more than classrooms - they are islands of stability in lives marked by constant change.

The educators’ panicked questions were existential: What happens to families whose right to stay in foreign countries depends on their USAID credentials? U.S. government employees assigned overseas are granted allowances intended to pay for an education equivalent to public schools in the United States. Many of these allowances are paid directly to schools, and many of those schools have not yet been paid their full tuition fees, leaving heads of schools wondering how they will pay their contracted teachers. What do they tell a teenager whose AP exams – and college dreams – might vanish overnight? How do they comfort a child watching their parents pack up their entire world with no opportunity to say goodbye to friends and cherished adults?

This administration believes it has a mandate for change. Forty-nine percent of Americans who cast a ballot in November 2024 – only 32 percent of Americans – voted for Donald Trump, whose explicit campaign promises to dismantle America’s administrative state are being implemented with efficient ferocity. But even if we accept this administration's insistence that USAID workers must be dismissed, indeed, we can protect these employees' children, mostly American citizens, who never voted for their displacement. Unlike natural disasters or global pandemics, this storm comes with an off switch if Congress or this administration chooses to use it.

Republicans and Democrats should act in the best interest of these students by ensuring that, regardless of what form the new American order ultimately takes, USAID families can complete the current academic year in their assigned countries and plan for where they will continue their schooling. This should include extending employees’ formal assignments to ensure they retain their visas.

While the shutdown of government offices and emails makes it hard to confirm the exact dollar amount, Congress must ensure that the current academic year’s funding for international schools serving approximately 2000 USAID families is disbursed as already authorized by Congress so schools do not bear the burden of funding shortfalls.

We must all call on America’s leaders to mitigate the human fallout of this administration's determination to dismantle our nation's administrative agencies and programs. Perhaps there are ways for America to be organized that do not rely on existing systems, which many of us recognize have shortcomings. However, within a complex infrastructure, it is hard to anticipate exactly what might happen when we change one piece.

While Americans struggle to find common ground, we can agree that our children should not pay the price of hasty change. We face a moment when doing right by our youngest citizens aligns perfectly with political wisdom, ideological integrity, and moral necessity. America must care for the families and the educators who choose to serve us, whether at home or abroad.

Ulcca Joshi Hansen, PhD, JD is a futurist, the author of the award-winning book The Future of Smart, and a Paul & Daisy Soros Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project. Her research and writing focus on the social impact on communities during periods of rapid social change.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less