Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Momentum for nonpartisan civic education

Louise Dubè is the executive director of iCivics. Civic Learning Week is cosponsored by the Farvue Foundation, iCivics, Microsoft, the National Archives, the National Archives Foundation, the National Council for the Social Studies, and the SN Charitable Foundation.

Headlines and conversations all around us tell us just how rare agreement on any topic is. Yet despite our myriad divisions, Americans from across the political spectrum agree on the i mportance of civic education, that we need more of it, and that it should be better funded.


What’s more, Americans agree that fundamental civic knowledge should be a centerpiece of that education. And we agree that civic skills are crucial. Time and again, parents indicate the desire for their kids to gain concrete skills that will help them be successful in life and work—a high-quality civic education does just that. Parents and educators, alike, want the very best civic education for our kids.

Civic education is a lifelong endeavor. As school districts across the country are looking for innovative ways to teach civics in a way that meets the needs of today’s student population, philanthropies and Fortune 500 corporations are looking to up their investments in civics and community engagement. Leaders from every sector are looking at how to engage in civic learning to sustain a healthy democracy, and new research is supporting the field.

This is the momentum that is fueling more than 100 organizations to come together March 6–10 to take part in the first-ever national Civic Learning Week. Additionally, 20 states have officially endorsed this week that provides an opportunity to celebrate the important role civic education plays in sustaining and strengthening our constitutional democracy.

The week will be marked by a half-day opening forum on March 7 at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and scores of in-person and online events across the country throughout the week. At the events, attendees will learn about new research in civic education, engage with thought leaders about innovations in the field, and have the opportunity to connect around a shared commitment to civic education.

This agreement and shared commitment does not mean civic education will look the same from state to state, or school district to school district—nor should it.

Difference is a feature of democracy—not a bug. But differences in viewpoints cannot undermine our commitment to prepare our citizenry to be informed and engaged members of our self-governing society. To solve our common problems we need more, not less, engagement across differences. Despite the partisan nature of our political system, the teaching of civics and our commitment to civic education must remain entirely nonpartisan.

The kinds of strides we’ve seen over the past years in our shared commitment to civic education have been possible because individuals, organizations, and policymakers have set aside individual and organizational interests to work together even when they disagreed:

●In the year-end omnibus bill, Congress made a significant down payment by increasing the federal allocation for civic education from $7.5 million to $24 million.

●In the last biennium, 16 states adopted 17 policies aligned with the CivXNow Coalition’s State Policy Menu. And the 2023 spring legislative session shows promise with more than 50 bills to advance civic education filed so far in 21 states.

●The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the U.S. Department of Education funded—initially under the Trump administration and continued under the Biden administration—the landmark Educating for American Democracy initiative that provides an inquiry-based framework for excellence in civics and U.S. history for all learners.

These are advances we celebrate. They represent down payments toward an increasingly healthy democracy. Join us in-person or online for Civic Learning Week—and let’s demonstrate that we stand united behind civic education.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less