Critically Thinking About Success

Plus some tidbits from my personal experiences. 

I’ve always had a fascination with why certain people stood out from the crowd and were successful. As I developed my Critical Thinking skills, I researched and paid attention to what were common traits these people had — and applied them to myself. I’m sharing these with you and then will show an example of how I personally utilized this information.

[Note: The example I am citing below is financial success, but the traits apply to any type of success.]

Trait #1: They have a specific, high, attainable vision of what they want

Successful people are often called dreamers — as they see possibilities that almost everyone else discards as pie-in-the-sky. But their dreams have at least three characteristics:

a) they are precise (not vague),

b) they are aspirational, and

c) they are within reason (not that you are going to beat Tiger Woods’ golf records).

These three attributes help a believer to stay focused on their vision.

When I was 25 my vision was: I wanted to be able to retire by the time I was 40.

I had an interesting job at GE Aerospace (and was soon promoted to management), but I had other interests in life. To be able to enjoy them, I needed to be financially independent, so that I would be able to go where I wanted, and do what I wanted, when I wanted. I shared my vision with some co-workers and friends. They smiled and said: “That’s nice — good luck with that!”

Even though I didn’t know anyone who retired by 40 (through their own efforts), this was a high goal that I was quite sure was doable if I adequately applied myself to it.

Trait #2: They don’t reinvent the wheel

One way or another, almost everything has already been done before. (In fact, many historians look at history as a collection of repetitious cycles. A related famous saying is: “If you don’t learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.”) There are two primary ways of learning: Education or Experience. I found that those who are successful maximize the education part. In other words, a significant key to success is to learn as much as possible from the accomplishments and failures of others.

After considering (and in some cases trying out) several strategies to bring about retirement by 40, I decided to invest in real estate. A critically thinking person knows that a trial and error (i.e., the experience) approach to real estate investing (or any other such option) likely takes way too long (putting at risk my goal of 40), and will also likely result in unnecessary financial and other setbacks that could jeopardize the whole plan.

I did not have the benefit of knowing anyone who had done this, so I chose to learn from strangers. I went to a local bookstore and bought every book they had on investing in real estate. Over the next year or so I carefully read some fifty of those books. Some books were fabulous and others I maybe only picked up one good idea. However, my perspective was that one usable idea could give me $10,000 profit — so that was a good return on a $20 investment (for the book) and 3± hours of reading.

Trait #3: They see opportunity when it presents itself

We ALL have been presented with (and will continue to be in the future) multiple opportunities. Unfortunately, many people don’t recognize most opportunities until they are in the rearview mirror. Successful people have developed the acuity to recognize a much greater selection of opportunities than others do.

I was in rural upstate NY, which was not identified by anyone as a hot spot for real estate investing. That said, my real estate investment crash course (the 50± books) gave me some ideas about what to look for. Before buying any property I also created my own documents that would help me assess opportunities — like a Return on Investment (ROI) form.

BTW, some of the 50± books I read were on Income Taxes, as understanding (and taking advantage of) tax laws is a very important part of a successful real estate investment strategy. It also clarified for me what category of real estate I should be investing in.

Trait #4: They intelligently take advantage of opportunities when presented

There are talkers and doers… Recognition of opportunities is an essential matter — but it is for naught if it isn’t acted on.

As a physicist, I can tell you that one of the fundamental principles of physics is the Law of Inertia. Basically what it means is that it takes more energy (effort) to get a stopped object to move forward, than it takes to get an already moving object to continue to move forward. The same applies to people. If you are in a moving forward mindset, you will be more open to opportunities than someone who is defensively protecting their turf, or who simply decides a priori that something can’t be done, is too much trouble, etc.

All the planning in the world means little if you aren’t willing to jump into the deep end. Shortly after the book education phase, I started making offers on select real estate properties. The details of getting appropriate real estate brokers, lawyers, banks, etc. is too long to go into here, but I also did that.

Before I got married (age 26) I had purchased my first real estate investment, as well as a home. My wife was on board and was supportive in several ways. We were on our way!

Trait #5: They are persistent, overcoming the inevitable roadblocks that are in the way

Every lofty goal comes with an assortment of obstacles. If they weren’t there everyone else would be doing it, and it would no longer be a lofty goal — it would be an everyday matter. So having a positive, persistent attitude is a key attribute of successful people.

From the get-go, I had several challenges regarding my real estate investing plan. One example is that I had limited cash to buy properties. As a 25-year-old, I had already started saving but had not had enough years to accumulate an appreciable amount. Once again I turned to the 50± books I had read for clever ideas on leveraging, etc.

There were multiple other problems to deal with. For example, we bought a home in November, that had been shut down. The Realtor assured us that the water had been properly drained. I worked on upgrading the unheated home over the Winter. In the Spring when I turned on the water, I ended up having to repair some 40 pipe breaks and leaks — some within walls. Ugh. The water had only been shut off, not properly drained. Lesson learned.

The Takeaway

There are no guarantees in life. Even if you adopt the above five traits, unforeseen circumstances might derail an otherwise good plan. I have a few adages I adhere to, and the most important one is: “Work as if everything depends on you, but pray as if everything depends on God.” This perspective has worked for me, but you decide what’s best for you.

Here is the result of my real estate saga. Since I was paying close attention (not just robotically going forward), I realized when I was 34 that I had attained my goal of financial independence — several years ahead of schedule. So I formally retired from my management job at GE. (I remember at my exit interview the higher level manager told me that he thought my “retirement” was a ploy to get a promotion. Funny.) My wife also retired from her executive secretary position at a major manufacturing company.

Subsequently, many people asked how we were able to retire at age 34. If they seemed to be genuinely interested I would outline the plan I adopted. To this day I’m surprised how many people’s first reaction was something like “You were lucky!”

A careful reader will know that luck had very little to do with it…

The plan for my next Substack commentary is to show how success with the failing US K-12 education system is finally in our grasp — but it means applying the above five traits.

©2025 All rights reserved.


Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

EXCLUSIVE: University Of Kentucky Offers To Violate State Law To Trans Kids — Changes Tune When Reporter Notices

The University of Kentucky’s hospital system hypothetically offered to provide transgender services to a child, which would constitute a violation of state law, according to an investigation by the Daily Caller.

A staff member for the UK HealthCare Department of Family and Community Medicine at Circle told the Caller on March 31 that they would schedule an appointment for hormone therapy for a hypothetical 15-year-old child.

“Um, yes, we do have trans … health at Circle,” the staff member said during a phone conversation.

“I also wanted to say that he’s also 15, I wasn’t sure if that changes anything,” a Caller reporter stated.

The staff member replied, “It does not.”

When asked specifically what services Circle provides, the staff member explained, “Hormone therapy — we don’t do the surgeries but we do have a facility that does surgery.”

Republicans in the Kentucky legislature passed a law in 2023 that would ban sex change surgeries, hormone therapy, and puberty blockers for patients under 18. Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the legislation, but the legislature overrode his veto in March 2023. Beshear claimed the ban would “endanger the children of Kentucky.”

The University of Kentucky said in a statement to the Caller the next day, April 1, that they follow state law, as well as President Donald Trump’s executive order pulling federal funding from healthcare facilities that provide gender transition services to minors.

“The University complies with State Law and President Trump’s Executive Order on Gender Affirming Care,” Kristi Willett, the executive director of public relations for the University of Kentucky, told the Caller.

Trump signed an executive order Jan. 28 prohibiting federal funding from going to hospitals and healthcare facilities that offered sex changes to minors. The order was paused in late February after two federal judges issued preliminary injunctions in response to legal challenges against the president’s action. A Daily Caller investigation found that more than three dozen hospitals were still offering the services to minors.

Former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said in a statement that hospitals who “chemically and surgically mutilate” children “should be held accountable.”

“Protecting Kentucky kids is not up for debate. President Trump and Kentucky lawmakers took decisive actions to end this permanent, life-altering harm. Any medical professional who chemically and surgically mutilates vulnerable children in secret or under the guise of some rebranded effort should be held accountable,” Cameron told the Caller.

The Caller called UK HealthCare’s Circle clinic again on April 2, the day after receiving a statement from the university denying that they were violating state law. This time, the Caller was given a different story as to whether or not they are still providing “gender affirming care.”

“I just spoke with my manager and she said there is a new law where apparently they have to be over 18 for hormone therapy,” a staff member said. “They could still be scheduled in the clinic but they would not be able to do the hormone therapy.”

Republican Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman did not respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

Amber Duke

Senior Editor. Follow Amber on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s Press Team Won’t Respond to Emails with ‘Preferred Pronouns’ in Signature

EXCLUSIVE: Children’s Hospitals Continue Offering Sex Changes After Trump Moved To Defund Procedures

Why Senator Rick Scott Shut Down Our Christian Film About the LGBT Agenda

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Arizona State Arrests 69 at Encampment

University Under Federal Investigation for Antisemitism

Following the lead of students at Columbia University who made the first pro-Hamas encampment on a U.S. campus on April 17, 2024, dozens of protesters at Arizona State University (ASU) descended upon ASU’s Alumni Lawn on April 26, 2024, at 8:45 a.m.

The protest was organized by Students Against Apartheid, which calls itself “a coalition of ASU students, clubs, and community orgs coming together to end ASU’s investment in the settler colonial state known as ‘Israel.’”

Armed with long-term supplies and tents, protesters quickly established a Hamas solidarity camp, which they dubbed the “ASU Liberated Zone.”

The encampment illegally occupied the newly renovated Alumni Lawn, the public-facing entrance to the university.

Officials immediately released a statement saying the encampment was unauthorized and violated the university policy and the Student Code of Conduct.

In addition, an ASU representative made clear that tents are not allowed anywhere on campus.

Unlike other universities where protests wreaked unending havoc on campuses for weeks, the administration responded swiftly.

The administration offered no path to negotiation or accommodation to the protesters who were violating university rules. The ASU police department was called in and by 9 a.m., officers were already tearing down tents.

Despite protesters linking arms to protect the encampment, the area was completely cleared. Three arrests were made after officers informed protesters they were in violation of misdemeanor trespass statute ARS 13-1502, which states it is illegal to remain on “property after a reasonable request to leave” by law enforcement.

Protesters quickly began rebuilding the encampment. They established a perimeter and proceeded to make demands, including:

  • A ceasefire in Gaza
  • ASU President Michael Crow’s resignation
  • Divestment by the university from “all companies tied to the state of Israel or complicit in the occupation of Palestine”

The university gave the protesters an 11 p.m. deadline to clear the encampment. By 6 pm, the crowd had swelled to 400 people.

Beginning at 10:40 p.m. and again at 11:47 p.m., police, who had been facing off with protesters, warned the protesters to disperse.

In addition to trespassing, the police informed the crowd that the encampment was also in violation of Arizona Revised Statute 13-2902, a class one misdemeanor that forbids unlawful assembly “with the intent to engage in conduct constituting a riot.”

Five minutes after the last warning and with no response from the crowd, the police moved in.

By 2 a.m. and with assistance from the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, ASU PD had arrested 69 protesters, mainly from the front lines. The crowd, which had shrunk to about 200 people, began dispersing.

Clean-up crews behind the police cleared the encampment.

Pro-Israel students helped authorities clean up the encampment

Of those arrested, only 20 were students; the rest were outside agitators. Despite this fact, Lexsari Coronado, an ASU student affiliated with the Party for Socialism and Liberation who is credited with organizing the protest, declared,

“This is just a student movement rising up and we are rising up with them. The movement is always student-led. The students are uprising, and this is changing the movement for Palestine. And yeah, we’re — we’re basically gonna stay here until our demands are met.”

Immediately after their arrests, the 20 students were suspended for violating the university’s anti-camping laws, banned from campus and prohibited from communicating with professors about coursework.

Three days later, on April 30, 2024, the 20 students filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against the Arizona Board of Regents.

Despite participating in a clearly demarcated illegal protest, the students charged that their First Amendment rights had been violated and sought a preliminary injunction to lift their suspensions.

The suit alleged that the consequences imposed upon them by ASU were causing them “irreparable harm” due to their inability to enroll in classes and meet academic requirements for graduation.

The district court judge denied the student’s motion to have their suspensions lifted and ruled that the students did not provide sufficient evidence that their First Amendment rights had been violated.

The judge also found insufficient evidence to support their claim that their suspensions were causing irreparable harm.

As of March 2025, the lawsuit is ongoing. The students amended their complaint, adding more defendants, and the sheriff asked for and received an extension to respond to the new complaint.

On Oct. 9, 2024, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell filed criminal trespassing charges, a Class Three misdemeanor, against 68 of those originally arrested. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail, a $500 fine and a year of probation. To date, trial dates have not been set.

In filing the charges, Mitchell stated, “The right to free speech does not extend to violating the law.”

Federal Investigation into ASU Over Complaints of Antisemitism

In January 2024, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into ASU after receiving complaints of antisemitism at the university.

The complaints charge that Jewish students at ASU have felt “threatened and discriminated against” since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack.

As reported by Campus Reform, whose Editor-in-Chief Dr. Zachary Marschall filed the complaints with the DOE, ASU’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) held an event on October 8, 2023, just one day after the massacre to help students “learn about the Palestinian liberation struggle against the U.S. and Israeli war machine.”

Five days after the massacre, on Oct. 12, 2023, ASU SJP held a “day of resistance” rally where students carried Palestinian flags and chanted “Free, Free Palestine” as well as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a call for Israel’s destruction.

The complaint asks for “sanctions against the University to the fullest extent [that the DOE] is able to impose them as well as forcing the University to ensure its funds are not sent to organizations spreading antisemitism.”

ASU is “one of several dozen universities accused by the Trump administration in March 2025 of allowing antisemitic harassment and discrimination to run rampant on campus,” reports Axios.

Arizona Advances Bill to Ban Encampments

Rep. Alma Hernandez, the Tucson Democrat who introduced the no encampment bill in the Arizona state legislature

State legislator Alma Hernandez, a Democrat from Tucson, is the principal author of a bill that would ban encampments on college and university campuses currently making its way through the Arizona state legislature.

Hernandez says the bill is a reaction to the wave of post-October 7 protests, which she charges were breeding grounds for antisemitism and illegal activity.

The Arizona House advanced the bill by a decisive margin on March 3, 2025. It now heads to the Senate.

In an interview with KJZZ Phoenix, Hernandez explained the need for the bill. “… both at the Arizona State University and University of Arizona, intimidating students because they are Jewish and trying to stop them from being able to walk… that’s problematic,” she said. “… No student should ever have to … find an alternate route to go to class. No student should have to be in a situation where they are harassed or pushed [which] did happen at Arizona State.”

Hernandez said that while she supports protesting and freedom of speech, those rights do not extend to criminal trespassing.

“What would people be saying if we had people out there who were literally calling for the death of black individuals on college campuses? I guarantee you people would have a problem with it … How is it any different? … Why are there double standards when it comes to Jewish community and Jewish students?” she asked.

RELATED VIDEO: U.S. veteran sounds the alarm on the infiltration of Islam into America’s education system

EDITORS NOTE: This Canary Mission report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Do Our Schools Have a Prayer?

There’s a battle right now related to religion and Oklahoma schools. Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters is in favor of greater religious expression in the public schools of that state. Others in the “The Sooner State,” including the state attorney general and some confused clergy, oppose what Walters is attempting to do.

Walters wants school children to have access to the Bible and the Ten Commandments in school.

Walters said in reference to Engel v. Vitale, the 1962 Supreme Court decision that threw out school prayer as unconstitutional: “I think they were dead wrong on that. Individuals have the right to express their religious beliefs. That does not stop in a school building,”

Walter also said, “What I’m trying to make sure is our kids understand American history.”

The opposition is claiming that, in effect, Walters wants to “establish religion” in the schools.

But what does our history show?

The First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Historically, this was understood to mean that there would be no established church at the federal level in the United States.

Even at the time the First Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1791, prohibiting a federal church, a handful of states had their own established churches at the state level, and saw no conflict between that and the First Amendment. The last of these to wither away was that of Massachusetts in 1833.

Meanwhile, one of the great legal scholars at Harvard in the 1800s was Joseph Story, who went on to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court. In 1851, Story wrote a commentary on the Constitution.

Story wrote: “Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [the First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship.”

He added, “An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”

Justice Story continued, “The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism [Islam] or Judaism or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

In other words, according to a great legal scholar writing fairly close to the founding era, the purpose of the First Amendment was not to banish God from the public arena.

Jumping ahead to the twentieth century, another associate justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, who would go on later to serve as the Chief Justice, wrote this about the founders and the First Amendment:

“The true meaning of the Establishment Clause can only be seen in its history…The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a ‘national’ one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others.”

Rehnquist gave an example from the very same men who wrote the First Amendment: “George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of ‘public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.’ History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.”

Thankfully, since Rehnquist wrote those words in 1985 in the case of Wallace v. Jaffre, there have been more “originalists” ruling on the high court—adding needed balance to the treatment of Christian expression in the public arena. Nonetheless, the battle for religious liberty is far from over.

As to the current battle, NBC observes: “Whatever happens in the Oklahoma case, more religious rights cases touching upon the establishment clause are on the horizon. Litigation is already underway over a law in Louisiana that would require public schools to display the Ten Commandments. A federal judge blocked the measure.”

Thomas Jefferson is often invoked as effectively the “patron saint” of secularism in the public arena. But even that is a misreading of history. For example, Jefferson wrote, “In the holy cause of freedom…heaven has rewarded us.” And he added, “that it may flow through all times…is my fervent prayer to heaven.”

The founders of America never intended to banish God from the public arena, including the public schools.

©2025 All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: U.S. veteran sounds the alarm on the infiltration of Islam into America’s education system

Trump admin freezes $210M to Princeton over anti-Semitism after Title VI complaint from Campus Reform’s Zachary Marschall

Marschall’s complaint, filed in January 2024, claimed that the school took no serious steps to combat anti-Semitism after the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of Jewish civilians.

A Trump administration official said that ‘Princeton has perpetuated racist and anti-semitic policies.’


WATCH: Princeton Loses $210M Over Antisemitism

President Donald Trump’s administration has suspended $210 million in funds to Princeton University in New Jersey after Campus Reform Editor-in-Chief Dr. Zachary Marschall filed a civil rights complaint against the school over anti-Semitism.

Marschall’s complaint, filed in January 2024, claimed that the school took no serious steps to combat anti-Semitism after the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of Jewish civilians. He stated, for example, that students protested against the Jewish state only weeks after the massacre, chanting messages like “Brick by brick, wall by wall, apartheid has got to fall,” and calling for an “Intifada.”

“The violent words of these protesters completely disregard the atrocities Hamas has already committed and promises to commit in the future against the people of Israel, including raping, murdering, and kidnapping civilians,” Marschall wrote at the time.

Marschall’s complaint led the Department of Education—then under former President Joe Biden—to start investigating the Ivy League university in April 2024. The investigation was one of 16 that were started as a result of Marschall’s Title VI complaints, with other colleges such as Brown University and Tufts University also finding themselves under federal scrutiny.

A reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation announced the $210 million funding freeze on Monday, stating that it resulted from the investigation that started under Biden’s Department of Education, which is now continuing under President Trump.

A Trump administration official told the Daily Caller: “Princeton has perpetuated racist and anti-semitic policies.”

On Tuesday, Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber sent a message to the community announcing that the school “received notifications from government agencies including the Department of Energy, NASA, and the Defense Department suspending several dozen Princeton research grants.”

“Princeton University will comply with the law. We are committed to fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and we will cooperate with the government in combating antisemitism. Princeton will also vigorously defend academic freedom and the due process rights of this University,” he continued.

The $210 million makes up almost 50 percent of federal funds that the Ivy League school receives, The Daily Princetonian reported.

On March 19, Princeton leaders called for “holistic spending restraint” due to negative attention from the White House—among other reasons—and announced that Princeton will cut down on hiring and raises, as well as potentially eliminate funding for certain projects, the Princetonian wrote.

Campus Reform has reached out to Princeton University for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.

AUTHOR

Elad Vaida

Managing Editor. Elad is a dual American-Israeli citizen of Romanian origin who moved to the U.S. in 2005. He graduated from Harvard University with a master’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies and from Penn State University with a bachelor’s degree in Political Science. He previously worked as a speechwriter for Senator John Kennedy (R-LA). His written work has appeared in The Federalist, Washington Examiner, The American Conservative, and other publications.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Princeton engineering dean states Oct. 7 massacre helped trigger ‘backlash’ to DEI

Are Pro-Palestine Protesters Also Anti-American?

How are Ivy League schools using $6B in federal funding?

EDITORS NOTE: This Campus Reform column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How American College Campuses Became the Islamo-Leftists’ Playground

The long game of indoctrination and radicalization. 

What do a Yale scholara Columbia studenta Georgetown researcher60 colleges and universities under investigation for relentless antisemitic eruptions, and Hamas – have in common?

In traditional times, the answer should be absolutely nothing. Institutions like Yale, Harvard, UPenn, Georgetown, and Columbia were once guardians of liberal democratic values, committed to fighting hatred and violence. Yet, today, this is far from the case.

A dangerous alliance has formed between the progressive movement in the United States and radical Muslim groups, using the guise of victimhood to create an anti-American coalition. Though antisemitic and anti-Israel at its core, the ultimate goal of this Red-Green coalition is far broader: the systematic destruction of America from within.

To accomplish its goal the movement has exploited American institutions, using democracy itself as a tool to undermine the very values that have made the United States the world’s most successful democracy.

The Long Game: Indoctrination and Radicalization

For years, the Islamo-Leftist alliance has been laying the groundwork to infiltrate academia. Starting with faculty and staff before trickling down to students. With foreign funding funneled into higher education institutions, this campaign of radicalization has steadily gained ground. The results became undeniable after the Hamas – October 7 barbaric attack on Israel, when the alliance mobilized in force, targeting America and its closest ally, Israel.

Over the past several years, the Red-Green network of terror sympathizers have systematically radicalized young minds, fostering a generation that views America as an illegitimate entity. They push for open borders, the abolition of law and order, and the delegitimization of democratic governance – all under the banner of “justice” and “liberation.” But their goals are clear: to dismantle the very foundations of American society.

The consequences are visible. Radicalized student mobs have stormed administrative offices, taken over campus buildings, and issued violent threats against those who dare to dissent. Freedom of speech has been suffocated, unless it aligns with the Islamo-Leftist narrative.

The Terror Connection: The Threat Within

We now have evidence linking these radical campus activists to terror groups openly calling for the destruction of America.

Consider Helyeh Doutaghi, an Iranian academic recently suspended from Yale for her involvement with Samidoun, a U.S.-designated terrorist entity. Doutaghi has openly called for a fight against America and the overthrow of its so-called “dictatorship.”

Then there’s Khalil Mahmood and Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a student-led initiative that seeks to dismantle both Israel and the United States. CUAD views America as an imperialist power, referring to their own activism as a fight from “within the belly of the beast.” Mahmood and CUAD activists have led aggressive protests, disrupted campus events, and pressured universities to cut ties with pro-American institutions.

Now, Mahmood’s legal case has become a rallying cry for leftist activists, who misleadingly frame it as a free speech issue while conveniently ignoring his open hostility toward the United States. His support among the progressive left underscores the extent to which the Islamo-Leftist alliance has gained influence, shaping the next generation of political extremists.

The Collapse of the Progressive Movement

The progressive movement has long harbored radical elements, but for many years, they remained on the fringes. Today, however, the radicals are no longer on the fringe, they are setting the agenda.

Leading progressive organizations now openly embrace slogans like “Globalize the Intifada” and “Bring Down the Empire.” Many young students chant these phrases without understanding their true meaning, believing they are fighting for “justice.” Yet these are not metaphors. The Red-Green radicals themselves admit they are direct calls for violence against American citizens.

At its core, the movement’s anti-American rhetoric represents a direct attack on the principles that define this nation. The United States was founded on liberty, democracy, and the rule of law, principles that have made it the freest and most prosperous country in history. But the Islamo-Leftist alliance sees these values as obstacles to its agenda. It embraces socialism, authoritarianism, and the suppression of free speech through intimidation and mob violence.

By radicalizing young Americans through university protests and social media propaganda, this movement is fueling a domestic insurgency designed to destabilize the nation from within.

The Global Threat: The Islamo-Leftist Alliance and Foreign Adversaries

This movement is not just a campus issue. It is a national security threat. It aligns itself with America’s foreign adversaries, openly supporting authoritarian regimes like China, Iran, Qatar, and Venezuela while demonizing U.S. foreign policy.

Radical activists in the U.S. describe American military efforts against Hezbollah and the Houthis, both designated as terrorist organizations, as “American terrorism.” Their hostility toward national sovereignty is evident in their push for open borders, knowing full well that a country without borders ceases to be a country at all. This is not about humanitarianism; it is about eroding America’s strength, identity, and ability to defend itself.

The Fight for America’s Future

The radicalization of American academia is no longer a fringe issue. It is a clear and present danger to national security. What we see on college campuses is a symptom of a larger problem: an organized effort to undermine America from within.

Universities, media outlets, and political institutions must stop legitimizing these extremist groups in the name of free speech. Law enforcement must take decisive action against those inciting violence. And American citizens must recognize that this fight is not about Jews or Israel – it is about the future of the United States itself.

By exposing and holding these extremists accountable, we can ensure that America remains a beacon of democracy and freedom. It is time for Americans to unite in defense of our country, reaffirm our commitment to its founding ideals, and resist the forces seeking to divide and destroy us. The future of the nation depends on it.

This article was originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

AUTHOR

Adam Milstein is an Israeli-American “Venture Philanthropist.” He can be reached at adam@milsteinff.org, on Twitter @AdamMilstein, and on Facebook www.facebook.com/AdamMilsteinCP.

©2025 All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pro-Palestinian Activists Largely Silent After Hamas Reportedly Tortures, Kills Protester In Gaza

World’s Wealthiest University Waves White Flag To Trump

Texas: Governor orders investigation of Islamic center planning Muslim compound

RELATED VIDEO: U.S. veteran sounds the alarm on the infiltration of Islam into America’s education system

To Save America We MUST Transform K-12 Education — NOW!

Only the US Dept of Education can do this. See 15 Profoundly Important Transformations they can provide. 

To understand what the Department of Education (DOEd) should do, please absorb these key facts:

a) The US K-12 education system is in deplorable condition and progressively getting worse.

b) Although there are multiple K-12 problems, the corruption of the curricula is BY FAR the most important.

c) 95%± of the blame of our failing K-12 education system is due to poor actions or inactions by the States — not DOEd.

I’ve repeatedly written (and proven) that the States are responsible for 95%± of the K-12 education failures, and that the curricula is the core issue… Jordan Peterson was interviewed by Megyn Kelly 3-26-25. Regarding K-12 he said: “Republicans have been asleep at the wheel for some four generations. Now the Trump administration is taking aim at DOEd — but that’s only a tiny proportion of the actual trouble. The REAL trouble is at the State level. I can’t see how the US K-12 school system could be set up any worse…” (Listen here for 30± seconds. What else do you need to hear?)

Another piece of empirical evidence (out of many) is that not a single State is formally teaching their K-12 children to be Critical Thinkers. Zero! How many States’ K-12 education programs exemplify leadership, competence, and creativity?

d) As such it makes zero sense to turn over our children’s education to nearly 50 second-rate bureaucracies.

e) We now have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to profoundly improve our K-12 education system, and

f) Trump’s real education position is: “Quickly make significant improvements to the US K-12 education system.”

g) We are in such dire straits, that we simply MUST make major national improvements within the next two years.

There are 4± Million graduates from US high schools, every year. Almost all of these students have been extensively indoctrinated with Left ideology, and have been specifically taught NOT to be a critical thinker… Most of these miseducated graduates then become voting citizens… This needs to be stopped immediately or America’s future will be determined by citizens with no Critical Thinking skills, and who have been thoroughly propagandized by Left-leaning ideology.

Solutions proposed for this have ranged from:

a) scrapping the entire K-12 public school system, to

b) eliminating DOEd (e.g., here).

Although the rationale behind these is very understandable, none of these suggestions are wisepractical, or effective resolutions to quickly and significantly improve the extremely dangerous situation we are in.

There is only one imperfect option that can accomplish this: a Transformed DOEd.

A Critical Thinking approach for those skeptical of this path would be to do an accurate and objective two-part analysis:

a) assessing the legitimacy and applicability of the claims against DOEd. (For detailed explanations concerning fifteen (15) inaccurate or inappropriate arguments against DOEd, see here.), and

b) identifying the advantages of keeping a completely transformed DOEd vs turning over our K-12 education to 50 States. That is what this commentary is about….

The Transformed Department of Education would start by making major internal changes like:

Get rid of bureaucratic bloat.

Strip down the DOEd to the bare essentials. There were over 4100 employees. How about aiming for 400 — a 90% reduction? Four hundred competent, motivated, well-directed employees can do a LOT!

For starters:

a) divide DOEd into Higher Ed and K-12 Ed, and

b) in the K-12 Ed part set up fifteen teams. Each team would have 5-10 people, entirely focused on one of the issues below.

So, for example, if the Oklahoma School Superintendent wanted advice about dealing with the challenges of AI, there would be DOEd AI specialists (group #14) who would share with him:

a) what competent and relevant scientific research (DOEd and otherwise) has been done regarding AI, plus

b) what other States have tried out and found useful.

Redefine its Mission.

Here is the boilerplate pablum that is DOEd’s current mission. Its objective should be upgraded to include something like: “creatively and competently assist States in producing a significantly better K-12 education product.”

Further, the Transformed DOEd would make it clear that it exists to provide leadership to States. DOEd’s primary K-12 function would be to provide unique and valuable assistance to States, so that they can do a better job at educating our children. In other words, DOEd would now be a competent service organization. States would have no obligation to take advantage of DOEd’s services — but they should be of such high quality that it would be foolish for them not to.

(BTW, this is part of the answer to those who ask “What happens if a different administration comes in and undermines DOEd?” If this means that the services are degraded, then States would just ignore DOEd and it would wither on the vine.)

Optimize its unique position.

DOEd should focus on providing accelerants to quickly and significantly improve States’ K-12 education results, like:

a) Pay for Scientific research on education topics of national interest (e.g., see the fifteen examples below). It makes no economic or practical sense to have fifty (50) States researching these national matters individually.

b) Poll and periodically meet with every State as to what their main concerns are and how DOEd can best assist them in providing a superior K-12 education product. Along the same lines, DOEd should sponsor an exclusive blog where State education professionals can ask and answer questions posed by their counterparts in other States. Additionally, DOEd should sponsor an annual national K-12 Education convention for all State education professionals to inter-relate and personally exchange ideas.

c) Reward States for creative efforts and/or for doing a superior job in improving their K-12 education system with some of DOEd’s $80± Billion in discretionary funds [out of a $250± Billion budget].

In other words, DOEd should leverage the power and money of the federal government to effectively service States in upgrading their currently inferior K-12 education systems. DOEd would do this by providing competent leadership and guidance, paying for new research, and financially rewarding States that are making good progress in improving their K-12 education product.


A Transformed DOEd will Assist States with National K-12 Education Issues like…

1 – Provide leadership regarding what should be the Primary Goals of K-12 education.

Assuming that the 3Rs are properly taught, the #1 goal of every State Education System should be to produce Critically Thinking graduates. It is simply stunning that there is zero commonality among the 50 States’ Education mission statements. States should have uniform education goals, but be free to decide on how to attain them.

A related objective is that DOEd would assist in profoundly changing the education system from its current focus on teaching students WHAT to think (and a lot of that is Progressive ideology), to instead teaching them HOW to think. Again, each State can decide how they think this can be best accomplished.

Since no State is currently doing that, this would revolutionize American education. (Note: presently less than ten States even mention Critical Thinking in their Education Department Mission statements! Worse, one commonality most States do have is that they teach the opposite of Critical Thinking — e.g., see this fine piece and this 1-minute video.)

2 – Provide leadership regarding what is the most effective Teaching Methodology.

In the education business, this is called pedagogy. For example, would the best way to educate our children be to have a classical education program (like here)? Or, would the best way be to adopt the state-of-the-art techniques used by MacKenzie Price in Alpha Schools — covering in 2 hours what traditional schools take 6 hours, and then using the remaining 4 hours to teach other valuable material (like financial management)? Or something else?

DOEd should solicit and evaluate a variety of teaching ideas — and then pass on their findings to the States. What sense does it make for 50 States to do this type of investigation? (Note: almost no States are seriously investigating this.)

3 – Provide leadership regarding teaching Critical Thinking.

There is no question that American K-12 education simply MUST produce graduates who are Critical Thinkers. The question is: what is the most effective way to teach this invaluable skill? There are different viewpoints here — and that is one likely reason that States are not formally doing this. DOEd should research this pivotal matter and then provide guidance to the States.

4 – Provide leadership regarding Common Core.

Common Core is a disaster (e.g., see here). Briefly, it was a States’ initiative to “modernize” the teaching of subject areas like math and reading. Although not a DOEd-initiated program, it did receive federal support. Currently, many States are looking for the best way to unwind from this failed experiment. A Transformed DOEd can provide helpful guidance based on the latest research.

5 – Provide leadership regarding Science Standards.

Since 49 States have now officially adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) all or in part, it has effectively become a national standard. The NGSS was a joint effort by States and progressives. For example, Bill Gates’s organization Achieve was a major player in the NGSS (as it was in Common Core). DOEd had relatively little to do with the NGSS.

Although the NGSS has multiple major flaws (e.g., see ten listed here). Separately the highly regarded Fordham Institute gave the NGSS only a “C” rating, clearly indicating that it is not worthy to become any State’s Science standards — as recent test scores continue to verify. Additionally, NGSS was trashed in this powerful Report. Despite these and more, the NGSS has not received anywhere near the negative publicity it deserves, or what Common Core received.

That said, States are gradually waking up to the major deficiencies of the NGSS, and are looking for what to do now. Again, this is an invaluable guidance role that DOEd could fill, providing the latest independent research, etc.

6 – Provide leadership regarding other subject Standards.

Due to the magnitude of the adverse effects caused by Common Core and the NGSS, other K-12 subject area standards have not received the attention they warrant. Probably the best example is what is happening in K-12 History classes. Progressives have infiltrated this subject, particularly regarding American History — converting it into Woke propaganda. Clearly, States need assistance in resisting these political distortions, and DOEd should be set up to provide help based on objective research.

7 – Provide leadership regarding Campus Safety.

The safety of students and teachers on K-12 school grounds has become a very serious issue. For example, in North Carolina (generally considered one of the better education States) the latest annual records indicate that there were over 11,000 reports of violence in NC K-12 schools, the highest on record!

An integral part of this crisis is classroom discipline. To get an indication of the scope of this issue, searching “classroom discipline” brings up hundreds of articles, reports, and studies. These sample articles list five wayssix waysseven waysnine waysten ways, .… up to twenty-five ways of improving K-12 school discipline. This is so out-of-hand that some states are passing legislation specifically about getting classroom discipline under control (e.g., here).

Closely related to this is DOEd guidance to States regarding student mental health issues. Here is a good discussion: 12 Eye-Opening Statistics on Mental Health in Schools.

There is simply no way that there will be good education outcomes if either students or teachers feel unsafe. This is a national issue and it makes little sense to have fifty (50) States spending time and money to figure out how to minimize this problem. DOEd to the rescue!

8 – Provide leadership regarding defending Parental Rights.

A national “Parents Bill of Rights” regarding K-12 schools, could be an exceptionally helpful improvement on the country’s public school system. North Carolina has such a law that’s good, but the record in other States is spotty. DOEd can easily research this issue and recommend a national standard for this very important matter.

9 – Provide leadership regarding Age-appropriate Materials.

What’s going on regarding materials being in K-12 school classes and libraries (see here and here) is extremely disturbing.

The fundamental problem is that the powerful American Library Association (ALA) does not recognize the issue of age-appropriateness! DOEd should officially go on record endorsing the significance of age-appropriateness in K-12 classes, libraries, and associated matters.

This idea is already societally accepted in the US. A good example is that the rating systems for movies and also for TV are based on age-appropriateness. The movie website says “Established in 1968, the film rating system provides parents with the information needed to determine if a film is appropriate for their children.” Exactly the same thing applies to books being considered for K-12 school classes and libraries!

To make a profound improvement regarding this critical matter, DOEd should specify that they will not provide certain DOEd discretionary funds to schools that do not have an enforced, appropriate official written policy regarding the age-appropriateness of materials associated with their K-12 schools.

Towards that same end, DOEd should aggressively oppose federal legislation that undermines the concept of age-appropriateness — like this.

Although there is some State-related activity on this matter, much of it is coming from outraged parents, rather than the State Departments of Education. Further, the ALA is a powerful national organization, so DOEd would be a much more effective opponent.

10-Provide leadership regarding the Teacher Certification issue.

Currently, the education mills are generally producing progressive graduates (e.g., see here) who have few Critical Thinking skills. How can such people be optimum teachers? No State can fix this on its own, but DOEd has the leverage and national influence to likely be able to.

Please carefully listen to Jordan Peterson’s recent comments on the corruptness of our teacher certification institutions, and how Republicans have been asleep at the switch for some 60 years, allowing this to happen. (Watch for 1+ minute starting here.)

11-Provide leadership regarding refocusing Teacher Unions.

Regretfully, some teacher unions have become more about prioritizing their own existence rather than seeing that the education of students is maximized. No State has the power — and few have shown the interest — to stand up to this negative influence on our K-12 education system. A Transformed DOEd is our best chance (by far) to redirect teacher’s unions to be an education ally.

12-Provide leadership regarding the Religion issue in K-12 education.

For some time now the public school system has been in a conflicting situation regarding religion. On the one hand, public schools are bending over backward to not do anything that some activists might claim is a 1st Amendment violation (a federal matter).

On the other hand, US public schools seem to feel obligated to convey morality and ethics (e.g., “discrimination is wrong.”) However, what is right or wrong is a religious [moral] position. Aggressively stepping into this gap are atheism and relativism — which are effectively religions (e.g., see here).

Directly related to this issue is that DOEd should take an official stand against the scourge of SEL that has infested public schools nationwide. SEL is effectively trying to replace Judeo-Christian standards with its own value system. DOEd’s position should be along the lines of this.

So, despite their professed concerns about not advocating for any religion, that is exactly what public schools are doing. DOEd should research and take a position on this exceptionally important issue, as (again) no States are doing that.

13-Provide leadership regarding the Phones in the class issue.

What should be the rules and regulations for students having phones in class is a very important and contentious issue. To leave this up to 50 States (and/or thousands of school districts) to figure out is an absurd plan. DOEd has the money to pay for competent research, and can then publish guidelines. Schools and districts would have less resistance and legal exposure by setting rules based on federal guidelines.

14-Provide leadership regarding dealing with Artificial Intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is bearing down on us like a tsunami. There are extremely complex and significant decisions that need to be made about how we optimize AI to improve the education of our K-12 students. AI could be a helpful tool or an extremely bad influence. To leave this complicated topic to be worked out by 50 states and/or thousands of school districts is insane. As before, DOEd has the money to pay for competent research, and can then set helpful guidelines for States and districts.

15-Provide leadership in other related matters.

Even though this is a long list, there are other K-12 education-related issues that States will have. DOEd should be carefully listening, and (where practical) provide the help asked for by States (e.g., by paying for new research, adding personnel, etc.).

The Bottom Line —

All of the current US K-12 education system’s weaknesses are being taken advantage of by anti-American, Left-leaning ideology advocates. The corruption of the K-12 Science curricula is a perfect example of how American students are being Pied Pipered to a woefully inadequate education.

Yes, the above issues are a HUGE ask for any federal agency to properly handle. However, whether DOEd exists or not, these major problems exist anyway. If DOEd is terminated, who will provide the leadership and guidance to States regarding how to best resolve these issues? The empirical evidence is overwhelming that leaving these serious challenges up to 50 States to resolve is non-sensical.

Leaving our children’s education up to 50 different States to figure out will simply NEVER WORK!

A Transformed DOEd should step into this void and provide constructive and effective K-12 education leadership and assistance. Now is the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do exactly that!

©2025  All rights reserved.


Note: The best chance we have for substantially transforming DOEd, is to have a quality collection of “outsiders” (outside the education establishment) participating in the process. People who have few pre-conceived ideas of what can and can not be done are more likely to be advancing the most creative improvements.


Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the State where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Trump’s DOJ Orders Law Schools to Halt ‘Abominable’ DEI Admissions

Who wants to go to a doctor or lawyer who is there because of the color of their skin, not their intelligence? Terrifying.

DEI is racist and bad, but using it in law and medical schools is downright evil.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that such practices are unconstitutional.

DEI is the opposite, the very enemy of American exceptionalism, What is American exceptionalism? Individualism. Ironically, “the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” (Ayn Rand)

Department of Justice:

Attorney General Pamela Bondi directed the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to begin compliance review investigations into admissions policies at Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California, Irvine. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellow of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023), colleges and universities are prohibited from using DEI discrimination in selecting students for admission, and the Department of Justice is demanding compliance.

“President Trump and I are dedicated to ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity across the country,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Every student in America deserves to be judged solely based on their hard work, intellect, and character, not the color of their skin.”

For decades, elite colleges and universities have prioritized racial quotas over equality of opportunity, dividing Americans and discriminating against entire groups of applicants, all in the name of DEI. The prior administration advanced the ideology behind this illegal practice and did nothing to protect the civil rights of American students.

“The Department of Justice will put an end to a shameful system in which someone’s race matters more than their ability,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Chad Mizelle. “Every college and university should know that illegal discrimination in admissions will be investigated and eliminated.”

While the DOJ monitors the ABA’s actions and enforcement of Standard 206, Bondi stated that she wrote to law school administrators to “make clear” that the anti-DEI directive applies to them too — even if schools “voluntarily” use race-based admissions practices:

The Department of Justice is closely monitoring the ABA’s actions as it reconsiders Standard 206 in May. In the meantime, I am writing to make clear that the same legal principles that prohibit the ABA from requiring law schools to comply with diversity mandates also prohibit law schools from doing so voluntarily.

There is no longer any question about the illegality of race-based preferences in law school admissions and employment decisions. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, the question was “whether a university may make admissions decisions that turn on an applicant’s race”—the answer was a resounding “no.” Race-based affirmative action proceeds on the “pernicious stereotype” “that there is an inherent benefit in race qua race—in race for race’s sake.” Such programs “treat individuals as the product of their race, evaluating their thoughts and efforts—their very worth as citizens—according to a criterion barred to the Government by history and the Constitution.” That is equally true of university employment decisions. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” And “[i]f an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law.”

De facto racial preferences established “through application essays or other means” are also unlawful. The Supreme Court gave us this example: While it may be permissible for universities to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life,” any preference for that applicant “must be tied to that student’s courage and determination”; it may not serve as a proxy for preference “on the basis of race.” I urge similar caution regarding any and all DEI initiatives. If diversity is defined in terms of race and sex outcomes, then universities cannot lawfully pursue diversity by any means.

I join the President and the Supreme Court in “forcefully reject[ing] the notion that government actors may intentionally allocate preference to those who may have little in common with one another but the color of their skin.”

A DOJ official exclusively told Breitbart News that Bondi’s memorandum is “a key example of the Department of Justice’s ongoing efforts to get harmful DEI practices out of American institutions and ensure that our legal system is built on a foundation of merit.”

After Bondi informed the ABA in a February 28 letter that the only “path forward” was to repeal the DEI mandate, the state of Florida appointed a working group to reconsider bar exam requirements.

DOJ Orders Law Schools to Halt ‘Abominable’ DEI Admissions Practices

By: Olivia Rondeau, Breitbart, March 29, 2025:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has ordered every U.S. law school to halt diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) admissions practices, with Attorney General Pam Bondi stating, “We have come too far as a nation to allow the abominable practice of discrimination on the basis of one’s race to continue.”

In a memorandum to all American law school deans and admissions officers obtained by Breitbart News, Bondi flamed the the American Bar Association’s (ABA) DEI standards and emphasized President Donald Trump’s January executive order to restore “merit-based opportunity”:

As law school administrators, you are all no doubt aware that Standard 206 of the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools explicitly requires schools to “demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion” including a commitment to having a student body and faculty “that are diverse with respect to gender, race and ethnicity.” The prior administration allowed “pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination” to spread “throughout every facet of academia” while “[p]roponents of these discriminatory practices” attempted to justify them “under the banner of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (‘DEI’).” But President Trump has been clear: “[D]angerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’” violate the civil rights laws of this country and will no longer be tolerated.

The ABA voted last month to suspend the enforcement of Standard 206 until August 31 while they revise their standards  in order to “integrate legal developments and forthcoming guidance from the Department of Education.”

The role the Department of Education could play in the ABA’s rules is now unclear after Trump signed an executive order last week calling for the education secretary to “take all  necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities.”

Digging deeper into the law school DEI policy, Bondi stated that she has already informed the bar association that the only “path forward” is the “complete repeal of Standard 206” because it “at a minimum, encourage[s] unlawful discrimination.”

“In response, the ABA has assured the Department of Justice that it ‘will not require a law school to violate the law to comply with its accreditation standards’ and acknowledges that its status as a federally recognized accrediting agency ‘is a privilege,’ not a right,” the attorney general continued, before arguing that the ABA’s message “is a mixed one”:

The ABA also says that it “has not” required law schools to violate the law in the past. That is absolutely false: Standard 206 has been on the books for years, and it requires blatantly illegal discrimination. The plain text of the standard acknowledges this by threatening that “[t]he requirement of a constitutional provision or statute that purports to prohibit consideration of gender, race, ethnicity, or national origin in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a school’s non-compliance with Standard 206.” Moreover, despite promising to amend Standard 206, the ABA has reaffirmed its “commitment” to preferencing “those who have been historically excluded from the legal profession”—in other words, the ABA has reaffirmed its commitment to race-based preferencing under the banner of DEI.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

TRUMP WIN: Federal Judge DENIES TRO In Case Revoking Student Visa of Pro-Terror Agitator at Cornell University

Nearly Every Federal Judge Obstructing Trump Has a Spouse or Child Drawing a Paycheck From a Democrat-Aligned NGO

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

At the University of Chicago, Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee

The pro-Hamas brownshirts at the University of Chicago noisily insist that they are only exercising its “right to free speech” when they demonstrators chant “From the river to the sea/Palestine will be free,” which, rightly understood, is a call for the destruction of Israel and its replacement by a 23rd Arab state. They are exercising their “right to free speech” when they harass Jewish students who are walking across the campus, or when they try to disrupt classes taught by “Zionist” professors. They call the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil by the government a violation of this Hamas collaborator’s “right to free speech.” But they are not about to accord the same “right to free speech” to pro-Israel groups on campus such as Maroons For Israel. More on this double standard can be found here: “Palestinian Supporters at My School Don’t Want Free Speech; They Want to Silence Jews,” by Joachim Sciamma, Algemeiner, March 26, 2025:

On March 11, 2025, University of Chicago students took to the quad, just as final exams were beginning, to oppose the arrest of Columbia University encampment organizer Mahmoud Khalil.

Khalil is accused of distributing pro-Hamas propaganda, including material labeled from the “Hamas Media Office.”  The University of Chicago student demonstrators invoked our school’s principles in defense of freedom of expression — labeling the arrest a violation of Khalil’s right to free speech.

Unfortunately, these protestors only agree with free speech when it is content they agree with….

Consider the following example: In February 2025, Israel confirmed that civilian hostages, Ariel, Kfir, and their mother, Shiri Bibas, had been murdered in Hamas captivity. Ariel was 4 years old, and his little brother was 9 months old when they were kidnapped….

Although the Bibas family’s true cause of death has been proven by forensic evidence, some of my peers at the University of Chicago still believe the terrorist propaganda that they perished at the hands of Israel.

In response to the murders, Maroons for Israel — the pro-Israel student organization on campus, of which I am the President– placed a University-approved installation on the Swift quadrangles in memory of Kfir Bibas on Monday, March 3.

By Friday, March 7, it was defaced; as far as we can tell, it was vandalized in broad daylight….

And that’s not the first time their hypocrisy has been on display. Last November, our approved banner explaining the danger of “globalize the intifada” rhetoric was dismantled and left in a dumpster.

Also, during an encampment on campus last spring, our approved installations were destroyed every evening, like clockwork, and every morning we had to rebuild them….

These students are also disrupting speaker events, and attempting to shut down opinions they disagree with. They called for the boycott of what they labelled “Zionist classes.” They invoke the principle of free speech when it suits them, but show open disdain for it otherwise….

Those anti-Israel “free speech” advocates tore down pro-Israel installations put up on the University of Chicago campus, not once, but every night. They defaced and tore pieces from posters with photographs of 4-year-old Ariel and 9-month-old Kfir Bibas, both of them murdered — strangled — by Hamas operatives. They pulled down the banner of a pro-Israel group explaining what the sinister slogan “globalize the Intifada” means, and left it in a dumpster. They want students to boycott “Zionist” classes. They want “free speech” for themselves, but wish to silence every possible expression of pro-Israel sympathies. The motto of these anti-Israel and antisemitic campus groups is the same everywhere, from Columbia to Berkeley: “Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee.”

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

The IDF Has Hamas Operating In Survival Mode

Prof deported for jihad terror links says Mahmoud Khalil shouldn’t be deported, it’s legal to be pro-Hamas

Canada: Muslim ‘non-profit’ organization ‘campaigns to endorse candidates based on Gaza support’

Palestinian Authority pays grants to terrorists from its General Intelligence Forces

‘Overwhelming number’ of Britons back mass deportation of illegal migrants and foreign offenders

RELATED VIDEOS:

Glazov Gang: The Left – Nothing Left But Mental Illness

Columbia University grads shred diplomas in protest over school’s cooperation

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

America Teeters On Precipice Of ‘Radical Education Reform’ After Trump Shuts Off Lights At ED

President Donald Trump fulfilled a key campaign promise when he signed an executive order to begin dismantling the Department of Education (ED), sending shockwaves throughout an entrenched bureaucracy that has been the face of American education for decades.

Though officially dissolving the ED can only be done through Congress, Democratic officials like California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walzteachers unions and several education groups have wasted no time in protesting Trump’s actions. Despite the outrage, experts say a full shuttering of the department would bring much-needed changes to a bloated education system that spends over $10,000 per pupil with very little to show for it.

“America is on the precipice of radical education reform and change, where we are empowering parents, and we’re not empowering the bureaucrats anymore,” Norton Rainey, CEO of ACE Scholarships, an organization that gives financial support to children so that they can attend the school of their choice, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We’re putting money into the hands of our children, not into administrators, and that’s a good thing for America.”

Trump’s executive order is framed around “returning education to parents and communities,” and directs the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”

The department excused half of its employees March 11 while Secretary of Education Linda McMahon vowed to end the “bureaucratic bloat” of her department to fulfill Trump’s mandate.

McMahon announced on March 3 that her department’s “final mission” is “to send education back to the states and empower all parents to choose an excellent education for their children.”

“American education can be the greatest in the world,” she continued. “It ought not to be corrupted by political ideologies, special interests, and unjust discrimination. Parents, teachers, and students alike deserve better.”

The main complaints surrounding the Department of Education, stemming from conservative and libertarian critics, is that the agency is unconstitutionalfails to deliver on the promises it makes and that is corrupted by left-wing ideology.

The taxpayer spends about $14,840 per pupil every year, according to figures from World Population Review, though educational achievement does not seem to be improving.

“Increases in education spending do not produce student achievement,” Johnathan Butcher, a senior research fellow for education policy at the Heritage Foundation, wrote in a statement provided to the DCNF. “How we use the spending matters far more — and since centralized policies will not meet the needs of a diverse study body nationwide, interest groups will claim that they need more money in order to make the programs work.”

Numerous reports regarding student test scores have revealed shocking declines in academic performance, one example being the Nation’s Report Card released in January. Its 2024 data showed plummeting reading scores for fourth and eighth grade students and static math scores for students in both grades. The report stated that this was “compounding a decline in the nation’s reading scores that started prior to the pandemic.”

Trump has championed the demise of the department for months, declaring that “we will ultimately eliminate the federal Department of Education” while on the campaign trail in Wisconsin in September.

“Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them,” Trump said during his speech accommodating his executive order signing on Thursday.

The Department of Education did not respond to the DCNF’s multiple requests for comment.

‘A Product Of Leftist Politics’

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act, with the office officially established in 1980. Carter stated that though the primary responsibility for education falls to the “states, localities, and private institutions,” the federal government “has for too long failed to play its own supporting role in education as effectively as it could.”

“The Department of Education is a product of leftist politics from the late 1970s,” Butcher continued. “President Jimmy Carter negotiated with teacher unions about its creation, and it has since become a way for special interest groups to identify and claim funding streams from federal taxpayers.”

Federal education projects and grants were already being organized and doled out before the ED, though the department was created to “improve the coordination” of these programs, as well as “supplement and complement” state efforts to improve education.

The office was contested by Republicans from the start, while in the Cato Institute’s policy recommendations for the 108th congress, the think tank cited several Democrats that weren’t fond of the idea, either. Democratic Rep. Benjamin Rosenthal went along with the plan out of “not wanting to embarrass the president,” according to the handbook.

The libertarian think tank also pointed to one House Democrat that spoke to the Wall Street Journal at the time. “The idea of an Education Department is really a bad one,” the anonymous House Democrat told the Journal’s Al Hunt in 1979. “But it’s NEA’s [National Education Association] top priority. There are school teachers in every congressional district and most of us simply don’t need the aggravation of taking them on.”

During his first State of the Union address in 1982, President Ronald Reagan called on Congress to eliminate both the Energy Department and the Education Department.

“The budget plan I submit to you on February 8th will realize major savings by dismantling the Departments of Energy and Education and by eliminating ineffective subsidies for business,” he said.

The ‘Gazillion-Dollar-Question’

Leading libertarian and conservative thought leaders at the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the American Enterprise Institute the Center for Education Reform remain convinced that dissolving the ED will not diminish the quality of American education.

Important programs would continue and could even flourish if given more flexibility if their grants were provided “in block grants to the states,” Butcher argued.

“Likewise, student loans should be moved to another agency, and the main adjustment will be to whom or where students make payments,” he continued.

Butcher’s long-term vision for education is that “local schools and state departments of education will not have to keep navigating burdensome federal education regulations or ‘dear colleague letters’ that micromanage local school practices. And this will be one of the largest benefits from closing the federal agency.”

“We do not have the option to send our kids to public school because of a progressive agenda. It’s not an option for a committed Christian family,” Pam Costes, administrator of Spirit Christian Academy, a private school with an alternative education model referred to as a NAUMS inc. university model school, told the DCNF. The institution is “a [private] school that puts the parents into their rightful place,” Costes said, though she is not against public school. Costes emphasized that the partnership between parents and the school are essential to the institution’s model.

During the COVID-19 shutdowns, the school looked to what other academic institutions were doing for guidance and that the school’s leadership was “really good about listening and letting people make their decisions about what they thought was for their family, and allow parents to make those decisions, rather than us,” Costes said.

“We don’t for sure know why some districts are really able to leverage their dollar to get greater growth for their students,” Dr. Marguerite Roza, research professor and director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University, told the DCNF. “But it’s clear that some districts are really quite successful at leveraging their money and getting better outcomes than maybe some of their others.”

Roza agreed with Butcher’s assessment that it is not the amount of funding that seems to make a difference, but how the funding is used. Edunomics has dedicated years of research to measuring states’ return on investment. The professor pointed to several factors that might impact a state’s return on investment, including differing work forces, certifications, “appetite[s] for academics,” poverty levels and pay structures.

Edunomics documents the correlation between state funding and student outcomes, with some data showing that increased spending doesn’t positively relate to increased academic achievement. However, some school districts in certain states within them do show a positive correlation.

The “gazillion-dollar-question” is why some states are more effective at converting their state or federal funding into academic success than others, and that it can’t be attributed to any one factor, Roza said.

The professor emphasized that it is not necessarily a department that leads to improved education, but good policies. She pointed to former President George W. Bush’s’ ‘No Child Left Behind’ policy, which she said was “widely suspected to be responsible” for “some steady improvement in student outcomes,” though other sources say that the policy was “a failed experiment.”

The policy triggered “more focus by states on getting the student outcomes,” Roza argued. No Child Left Behind expired in 2009 but was later officially changed in 2015 to the Every Student Succeeds Act.

A common critique of private schools is that they are not accessible to all students. Organizations like ACE Scholarships and the Commonwealth Foundation, a Pennsylvania-based think tank dedicated to expanding school choice and fighting government overreach, work to ensure that school choice options are available, even for low-income families.

“I think we as taxpayers need to ask ourselves what we are getting from the U.S. Department of Education,” Rachel Langan, a senior education policy analyst at the Commonwealth Foundation, told the DCNF. “What are we getting for all of those tax dollars and is there a better way for those dollars to be spent?”

Langan is a former public-school teacher and described herself as once “very pro-public education” to the DCNF. She pointed to the COVID-19 shutdowns’ effects on education as having changed her perspective.

The policy analyst noted that the “COVID crisis open[ed] the eyes of American parents as to the value they were receiving or not from their public schools.” Langan pointed to the shutdowns as a catalyst for many parents to realize that education could be improved, that school choice options are a necessity and how confusion emerged among parents over funding.

“Where is our money going?” She asked.

The Commonwealth Foundation “would like to see a dollar amount attached to every child in Pennsylvania that would follow that student to the school of their choice, whether that’s a public, private, homeschool, career, technical school or charter school,” Langan continued.

She also referenced that in January, the think tank learned from a Right-to-Know request that there are about 50,000 students who applied for a tax credit scholarship in the state and did not receive one due to Pennsylvania’s state program caps. “There’s 50,000 kids whose families want something better for them who applied for scholarship but because of program caps, they didn’t receive it,” she said.

ACE Scholarships also provides K-12 scholarships to lower-income children. The organization also collaborates with state legislatures to advocate for school choice policies.

“Our belief at ACE is that school choice works,” Rainey told the DCNF. He also noted that ACE financially supports children with partial tuition scholarships for up to $4,000 annually, and that a child’s quality education prepares kids for the “American dream.”

Rainey said that at ACE, they believe every child “should experience the American dream. And we think that it really does begin with education, but sadly, as we all know and we lament about this, our country is not providing the American Dream for too many kids. They’re being left behind. They’re not being educated.”

Rainey pointed to some “exciting” upcoming changes in education, including Texas’ proposed education savings account bill and Trump’s federal tax cut initiative(R

“We believe that when you invest in kids, great things will happen, and that when you change education, that you’re changing everything in their lives,” he said.

AUTHOR

Audrey Streb

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Begins Process Of Redistributing Department Of Education’s Duties

‘Fail Our Children’: New Data Shows Just How Badly Student Learning Suffered As Schools Doubled Down On DEI

‘We’ll See Our Scores Go Up’: Linda McMahon Vows To End Bureaucratic Bloat In Education, Fulfill Trump’s Mandate

Blue States Sue Trump Admin Over Education Department Cuts

Department Of Education Warns Schools Nationwide Must Drop DEI Policies Or Lose Federal Funding

JOSHUA MERCER: School Choice Option Should Be Available To All Parents

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson Signs Education Bills That Include School Choice Expansion

School Choice Helps Close Performance Gap For Low-Income Students, Study Finds

MOORE: The American Dream … Is Still Alive

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Linda McMahon Says She Was ‘Fully Aware’ Her Admin Job Would Be To Eliminate Her Own Position

Education Secretary Linda McMahon told the Daily Caller on Tuesday that she was “fully aware” that her administration job would be to eliminate her own position as she and President Trump prepared for his second term in the White House.

Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that directed the Secretary of Education to take “all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the States.” Both Trump and McMahon have talked about fully eliminating the department, which would require Congressional approval. McMahon told the Caller that she knew she was signing up for a temporary job when Trump spoke to her about taking the top education post.

“Bear in mind that I also served as co-chair of the transition committee, so I was fully on board all along with all of the [president’s ] thought process,” McMahon told the Caller, noting that Trump had continuously touted his plans on the campaign trail. “I was fully aware of the job that I was assuming and he was very clear with me, and then asked me about my willingness to do this.”

“He always knew my interest in education. The fact that I served on a board of trustees for university for 16 years, and been on the State Board of Education in Connecticut. I had some background and had done some research in education, and I had some really strong ideas and strong opinions, and he liked our conversation, and so I agreed to do this,” the education secretary told the Caller.

Trump’s executive order does not tell McMahon where to move each function of the department, but that is something the secretary is looking at, she previously told the Caller. For example, the Office of Civil Rights may end up in the Department of Justice, McMahon hinted.

The administration has repeatedly pointed to previous student achievement scores when justifying its decision to dismantle the Education Department. The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress data, released in January, showed that in 2024, one-third of eighth graders, the largest percentage on record, failed to reach reading level expectations. Students’ scores in reading have been on a decline since 2019.

“Since 1979, the U.S. Department of Education has spent over $3 trillion with virtually nothing to show for it,” the White House wrote in a fact sheet. “Despite per-pupil spending having increased by more than 245% over that period, there has been virtually no measurable improvement in student achievement.”

While Trump’s executive order calls for the dismantling of the department, both he and the secretary have talked about axing the sector of the federal government. McMahon mentioned to reporters on Tuesday that her department will be working with Congress on the dismantling but also on codifying the president’s executive order.

“So working in partnership with Congress, I met with Senator Rounds yesterday. We had a really good conversation, because he was one of the first ones to hop out and talk about how we would take away the Department of Education and make sure the states were more responsible for their programs,” McMahon told reporters.

“And Senator Cassidy and I, He chairs the Health Committee, he wants to introduce legislation [to eliminate the department] as well, so we will be working lock stepping with Congress by the time they do vote for that, which I hope eventually, we will convince them that the best education we can provide for students is at the state level and not through the bureaucracy in Washington,” she added.

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House correspondent. Follow Reagan on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: Linda McMahon Prepares To Shut Down Department Of Education Following Trump’s Order

Soaring Levels Of Non-English Speaking Students May Be Driving National Reading Test Scores Into Ground

Linda McMahon Points To Massive Flaw In Major Universities’ Vetting For Foreign Students And Teachers

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Wanted Foreign Student Protesters Cook Up Preemptive Lawsuits To Ward Off ICE Deportation

As the Trump administration continues to crackdown on alleged pro-Hamas agitators on college campuses across the country, foreign students hiding from immigration authorities are adopting another legal strategy —  suing before they are even arrested.

The Trump administration is cracking down on the many anti-Israel foreign student protesters who clashed with police, overtook campus property and allegedly harassed Jewish students at universities across the U.S.. The White House, which has made immigration enforcement a top policy priority, has already overseen the detention and deportation of several high-profile foreign nationals allegedly sympathetic to Hamas, a terrorist-designated organization.

Two foreign students — Yunseo Chung of Columbia University and Momodou Taal of Cornell University — are both wanted by federal immigration authorities. While neither have surrendered or been caught by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, both individuals have sued the Trump administration to put a halt to enforcement actions against them. In Chung’s case, she successfully requested a court to block her arrest — at least temporarily.

“This action challenges the government’s shocking overreach in seeking to deport a college student, Plaintiff-Petitioner Yunseo Chung, who is a lawful permanent resident of this country, because of her protected speech,” Chung’s lawyers stated in a lawsuit filed Monday against the Trump administration. “The government’s actions are an unprecedented and unjustifiable assault on First Amendment and other rights, one that cannot stand basic legal scrutiny.”

Virtually every foreign student targeted by the Trump administration so far has claimed the actions violate their freedom of speech, but immigration experts that previously spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation pointed out that the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The State Department has the authority to remove any non-citizen deemed a potential threat to U.S. foreign policy, which would include individuals appearing sympathetic to a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.

“This is definitely not a free speech issue,” Matt O’Brien, investigations director for the Immigration Reform Law Institute. O’Brien, who previously served as an immigration judge, pointed to a section in U.S. code that states, “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.”

“Temporary visa holders can have their visa revoked if they are found inadmissible and permanent visa holders (green cards) can lose their green cards and be removed if they violate a ground of removability,” said Lora Ries, the border security and immigration director at the Heritage Foundation. “The U.S. Government hasn’t charged terrorism-related grounds of deportability or sought to have a green card revoked for too long. And it shows.”

Chung, a 21-year-old permanent resident of the U.S. and native of South Korea, has been involved in the anti-Israel protests that have swept college campuses, her lawyers acknowledged in court documents. She was among the individuals arrested on March 5 amid a sit-in at Barnard College’s main library — a protest that turned violent.

As has become typical with pro-Palestine student activism, the protest at Barnard’s library disrupted classes and led to law enforcement arriving on scene. A bomb threat was called in, prompting police to evacuate the building, but some protesters allegedly chose to resist, leading to some being arrested. Following her arrest by the New York Police Department, Chung was given a desk appearance ticket for “obstruction of governmental administration,” which her lawyers framed as a “a common citation issued by the police at protests” in their court filing.

However, it didn’t take long for more serious consequences to materialize for Chung. Her lawyers accuse ICE officials of signing an administrative warrant for her arrest on March 8 and allege that ICE agents visited her residence looking for her on March 9. The following day, a federal law enforcement official informed her counsel that her lawful permanent status was revoked.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed that Chung is wanted by immigration authorities, and accused her of participating in pro-Hamas activities.

“Yunseo Chung has engaged in concerning conduct, including when she was arrested by NYPD during a pro-Hamas protest at Barnard College,” a DHS spokesperson said to the DCNF. “She is being sought for removal proceedings under the immigration laws. Chung will have an opportunity to present her case before an immigration judge.”

In an interview with the New York Times, her lawyers would not comment on her whereabouts, but she likely is in no need to hide out for the time being. On Tuesday, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the Southern District of New York temporarily blocked the Trump administration from arresting her.

“Defendants-Respondents are enjoined from detaining the Plaintiff-Petitioner pending further order of this Court,” Reice, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote in her order. The judge also instructed the Trump administration to give advance notice to the court if it wishes to detain Chung for reasons beyond her removal from the country.

Taal, a 31-year-old Ph.D. student in Africana Studies at Cornell University, sued the Trump administration shortly before the State Department decided to pull his student visa. In his lawsuit, Taal challenges two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump — Executive Order 14161 and Executive Order 14188 — that aim to clamp down on anti-Semitism and pro-Hamas activity by foreign student protesters.

The Gambian national claims the orders have forced him to withdraw from public engagement, depriving others of their “rights to listen” to his rhetoric sympathizing with Hamas and espousing anti-Israel sentiment, according to his lawsuit.

“As a result of the executive orders, Mr. Taal has been forced to profoundly alter his prior speech and association patterns,” his attorneys stated. “He has refrained from attending protests and public political meetings, has substantially reduced his activity on social media, and no longer discusses politics with associates from Cornell, fearing his words will be misinterpreted or reported to government authorities.”

“He lives in constant fear that he may be arrested by immigration officials or police as a result of his speech,” the lawsuit continues.

Taal has repeatedly declared his hatred for America over the years on social media and he celebrated the massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas terrorists.

“The end of the US empire in our lifetime in sha Allah,” Taal posted online in February 2022. Just several months later, he — seemingly contradictorily — celebrated his acceptance into a U.S. university, writing “Student Visa issued. We going to America baby! Alhamdulillah! Let’s get this PhD.” He later reiterated his contempt for America, posting “My hatred of the US empire knows no bound. Wallahi,” in November 2022.

Taal rejoiced online the day Hamas militants stormed into Israeli territory and killed roughly 1,200 people. “The dialect demands: That wherever you have oppression, you will find those who fighting against it. Glory to the resistance!” he posted in the early morning hours of Oct. 7, 2023.

Taal was facing consequences for his campus actions before Trump returned to office and signed any executive orders targeting pro-Hamas protesters, according to Inside Higher Ed. Cornell University officials suspended him for a second time by October 2024, with a university email telling him he “demonstrated a pattern of escalating, egregious behavior and a disregard for the university policies.”

Earlier in March, DHS asked Taal to surrender to immigration authorities. The Department of Justice (DOJ) confirmed that his student visa was pulled, arguing that the move is in line with Trump’s directives.

“This Department has already been fighting in court to vigorously defend President Trump’s agenda and will continue to do so, especially when it comes to protecting Jewish Americans,” a DOJ spokesperson stated.

Trump has taken unprecedented steps in attempting to remove allegedly pro-Hamas students from U.S. soil.

In the most high-profile case to date, immigration authorities arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of the anti-Israel protests at Columbia University, earlier in March and have kept him detained at a facility in Louisiana while his deportation challenge plays out in court. ICE agents have also detained Badar Khan Suri, an Indian national and researcher at Georgetown University, and arrested Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian from the West Bank, after her student visa expired and was previously arrested for her alleged participation in pro-Hamas activity at Columbia University.

The White House successfully deported Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese national working as an assistant professor at Brown University, after immigration officials allegedly discovered adoring pictures of deceased Hezbollah terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah and other pro-terrorist images. Ranjani Srinivasan, an Indian national who allegedly participated in anti-Israel protests, self-deported to Canada after her visa was revoked.

The Trump administration appears to have only just begun cracking down on anti-American foreign students. DHS says it will continue to investigate students allegedly engaged in pro-Hamas activity.

“ICE [Homeland Security Investigations] will investigate individuals engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization,” a DHS spokesperson said to the DCNF. “Based on investigative findings, the Department of State may make a determination which may result in visa revocation or other action impacting the immigration status of an alien in the U.S.”

AUTHOR

Jason Hopkins

Immigration reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ICE Rolls Up Hundreds Of Criminal Illegal Migrants In Sprawling Six-Day Massachusetts Raid

Feds Say Columbia Student Covered Up Past Employment At UN Agency Embedded With Alleged Hamas Operatives

Hamas funded Columbia protesters, bragged to hostages about their ‘American operatives’

Mahmoud Khalil Hid His Work with UNRWA

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Conservatives Urge Trump to Bypass Blue States, Empower Local Schools and Parents with School Choice

As education advocates from the national to local level praise President Donald Trump’s commitment to deliver the four-decade-old conservative policy goal of abolishing the Department of Education, they warn that Democrat-controlled states could implement worse curricula than the federal DOE and ask the president to consider directly funding local school districts or parents through school vouchers.

President Trump campaigned on shuttering the 45-year-old federal department in 2024, and shortly after taking office, he moved swiftly to keep his promise. “The Secretary of Education shall, to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely,” stated President Trump’s executive order, issued last Thursday, March 20. He also cut the number of federal employees working in the DOE by approximately half.

President Trump has largely signaled he will allow states to set their own education policies — something that concerns parental rights advocates living in liberal states such as California.

“If it does come down to the states, I would be a big advocate,” Sonja Shaw, president of the Chino Valley (California) Unified School District Board of Education, told “Washington Watch” last Friday. But “if you give back to local control, in states like California, that could be kind of nerve-wracking for a lot of us here fighting the good fight.” Democrat-controlled states determined to promote such controversial programs as anti-American history curricula, critical race theory, or the history of the LGBTQ movement “can make it very, very difficult for districts like ours that are actually trying to educate and not indoctrinate” students.

Shaw faced death threats and official investigations from California officials for adopting a parental notification policy that requires teachers to tell parents if children begin to identify as another gender at school.

Instead, she favors the federal government awarding education dollars “directly to the districts based on merit,” said Shaw. “Give it to the counties. Local control is the best, right? And if you give it to the counties, they know exactly what is needed and where it’s needed, and they can disperse the money.” The awarding of federal education grants “needs to be merit-based,” determined by test score improvements, “because a lot of states are like California. We have some great [states], but we also have some horrific ones that have weaponized the Department of Education towards districts like ours that are trying to actually educate kids.”

Two former secretaries of education hope the president will go one step further: Bypass educational bureaucrats at the state and local level and simply give federal education funds directly to parents through school vouchers.

“A better approach is to simply give Title I money to poor parents and let them pick their schools. That is exactly what Trump’s order intends to do. Putting funding in students’ backpacks would eliminate the bureaucracy that reduces its impact when administered federally,” wrote Reagan administration Secretary of Education William J. Bennett in a Newsweek op-ed this week. “According to Gloria Romero, cofounder of the charter school Explore Academy, local and state education agencies employ approximately 50,000 people mainly to comply with burdensome (and often woke) requirements imposed by the then-4,400 Education Department employees.”

Bennett echoed his own call to treat federal public school dollars akin to Pell Grants as he co-authored a second op-ed with President George H.W. Bush’s secretary of education and 1996 Republican presidential hopeful, Lamar Alexander. Unlike local school funding based on “creaky formulas that distribute funds to schools in ways that may never reach the youngsters meant to benefit from them,” in college “we give Pell Grants to needy college students that accompany them to the colleges they actually attend. If such vouchers — which is what Pell Grants are — helped to create the best colleges, why not use them to create the best schools?” asked the secretaries. “That would eliminate layers of bureaucracy, inject needed competition into the education system, and shove Uncle Sam out of the way of state decision-makers and, especially, of parents making the best school choices for their children.”

For instance, Bennett noted in an interview with Fox News, classical academies have higher academic standards and “teach character.”

“Federal control of education has become a jobs program for bureaucrats, and it puts students last,” wrote Bennett.

Their successor, Trump-47 Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, has promised her deep personnel cuts will shear off “bureaucratic bloat” that has attended public schools due to decades of top-down federal policies.

Bennett concluded that “history and common sense show the solution is boosting education freedom, not preserving the failed Washington status quo.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has starkly criticized the actions Trump has already taken to rein in the federal education bureaucracy. “This overreach needs to be rejected immediately by a co-equal branch of government. Or was Congress eliminated by this executive order, too?” he asked.

That left Shaw bemused. “Let’s just lay out the facts,” she said. “Newsom put his kids in private school when he shut down schools here in California for the majority of the children. He also sued our district and other districts for just wanting parental involvement. So, of course, he’s going to be opposed to something that’s going to benefit our children, because he’s never been successful at helping our educational system here in California,” she noted.

“They have mismanaged and funneled monies through to the lobbyists, the special interests through these departments, all while failing kids at reading, writing, and math,” Shaw told the program. “Every time he speaks, he just exposes himself.”

Yet Newsom has legal backup. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) filed suit against the Trump administration in Massachusetts, while the National Education Association (NEA) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) sued the administration in Democratic Maryland.

Legal experts find the lawsuits ironic, because the Department of Education’s existence violates the Constitution. “The vast majority of functions carried out by the Department of Education are not authorized by the Constitution. That is because the Constitution grants the federal government only limited, enumerated powers, none of which encompass education policy,” wrote Thomas A. Berry at the Cato Institute. The enumerated powers, which states delegated to the federal government, may be found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the states “or the people” under the Tenth Amendment. “The president and education secretary should make a clear case for why their oaths to defend the Constitution require this executive action. If they do so, this action could be an important step toward restoring the federal government to its proper role.”

Since the department was established by Congress, Congress must act to formally abolish it. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) reintroduced a bill to abolish the Department of Education for good (H.R. 899). The one-sentence bill reads in its entirety, “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2026.”

“When this department was put in place, it was pretty much a giveaway from [President Jimmy] Carter to the unions. And since then, the Department of Ed has not closed one achievement gap. Kids are still failing at reading, writing, and math,” noted Shaw. “Since this department was put in place, it just funnels money through to the special interest groups, which does not benefit our children.”

“We were doing fine educationally prior to the Department of Education being created on the federal level, and we’ll be okay afterwards,” said former Congressman Jody Hice, who hosts “Washington Watch” on Fridays.

“You have been really on the tip of the spear on this issue and so many other issues that the education in California is specifically dealing with, from LGBT indoctrination and [more],” Hice told Shaw. “I just want to say thank you. God bless you. Godspeed to you and others who are stepping up.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Court: NJ School Districts Can Scrap Secretive Trans Student Policy that Excluded Parents

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

PODCAST: The Schumer Dilemma and Taking Down the DOE

GUESTS AND TOPICS

ROGER ARONOFF

Roger Aronoff is the executive director and Editor of the Citizens Commission on National Security. Aronoff founded the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He has produced and directed six documentaries, and produced a weekly series on PBS called “Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg.”

TOPIC: The Schumer Dilemma and a Lesson for the Left

REV. BEN JOHNSON

Rev. Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand. His writings have also appeared in The (UK) Guardian, Human Events, The Stream, Real Clear Policy, Conservative Review, The Daily Caller, and have been cited by National Review, CBS News, and Fox News. He was managing editor of FrontPage Magazine and U.S. Bureau Chief at LifeSiteNews. He is the author of two books on tax-exempt foundations, as well as Party of Defeat (2008, Spence, with David Horowitz). Before turning to online journalism and editing, he spent more than a decade in all facets of radio broadcasting, including news and talk.

TOPIC: ‘Unconstitutional, Ineffective, Incompetent, Unnecessary’: Trump Moves to Abolish Dept. of Education

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Illinois Bill Would Let Failing School System Send Homeschooling Parents To Jail

Not a single student can do math at grade level in 53 Illinois schools.

Not a single student can read at grade level in 30 Illinois schools.

The Democrat’s solution? Jail parents who want better for their children.

Illinois Bill Would Let Failing School System Send Homeschooling Parents To Jail

By: Diana Sroka Rickert, The Federalist, March 21, 2025

A new bill requires parents to report themselves to their local school district, and parents who do not will be considered truant.

Homeschool parents would face fines, misdemeanor charges and even jail time if they do not report themselves to local public school officials, under a new proposal from Illinois Democrats.

Parents also would be required to provide public school officials with a “portfolio” of their children’s work at any time, at any interval and frequency, until that portfolio meets the public school’s satisfaction.

The bill, dubbed the “Homeschool Act,” requires parents to report themselves in writing to local school officials starting in 2026. Parents who do not will be considered truant. They face Class C misdemeanor charges, which are punishable by up to 30 days in jail. They also face fines and lengthy hearings forcing them to comply with the Act. Under this proposal, parents also face investigations by state child welfare officials.

“I would argue that it is actually a really good thing for the good homeschool parents,” says the bill’s sponsor, suburban Chicago Democrat Terra Costa Howard. “The ones who are doing it the right way … they’re going to be able to do that.”

The thinking from bill sponsors, of course, is that parents are inadequate to teach their own offspring how to read, write, and prepare them for adulthood. It is time to bring in the professionals, aka the government, to “protect” these children from mom and dad. Let’s take a look at how things are going at schools run by these so-called professionals.

1. A Majority Of Illinois Public School Kids Struggle in Reading and Math

More than two-thirds of Illinois eighth graders are not proficient in reading or math, according to results from the recent National Assessment of Education Progress. Worse, the public school system is failing minority children in a devastating way. Only 16 percent of black eighth-graders in Illinois are proficient at reading, and only 8 percent of black Illinois eighth-graders do math at grade level.

2. Extremely Limited Education Choices In Illinois

Unless your parents homeschool you, the only way to avoid public school in Illinois is to be rich enough to afford tuition at a private or parochial school, or lucky enough to earn a scholarship. Illinois has no education savings accounts, no school vouchers and no tax credit scholarships. In fact, Illinois notably became the very first state in America to shut down a school choice program funded by tax credits in 2024.

That’s how bad the state’s politicians want to trap kids in failing public schools.

3. Physical Abuse Was Only Recently Outlawed in Illinois Schools

Up until 2021, many Illinois public schools used seclusion rooms and face-down restraints to punish students. The practice was finally banned after the Chicago Tribune and other news outlets published exposés reporting that “some schools routinely locked children in closet-like seclusion rooms to force them to complete schoolwork, for being disrespectful to employees or for behavioral infractions as minor as spilling milk. Inside the small spaces, children sometimes cried for their parents, tore at the walls, or urinated when they were denied use of the bathroom.”

Worse, parents often were powerless against such treatment of their children and often viewed as part of the problem or kept in the dark about the practices altogether.

4. Sexual Abuse in Public Schools

Just this week, a special ed teacher in suburban Chicago was charged with molesting a student. Unfortunately, this story happens over and over again, every school year, statewide. In Chicago Public Schools alone, the office of the inspector general has logged more than 400 investigations into sexual assault involving district teachers and staff every school year since 2018.

In one case, a middle school charter teacher in Chicago met a 16-year-old student on an online dating app, and proceeded to have a sexual relationship with the student. But state child welfare officials refused to pursue the case. The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, at the time led by the famed Kimberly Foxx, also refused to pursue charges against the teacher demonstrating that state child welfare workers and those tasked with protecting children are failing at defending minors truly put in harm’s way.

In another case, an elementary school teacher in Chicago Public Schools kissed a student on the lips during class. An investigation into this incident revealed at least six separate allegations against the same teacher dating back six years that had never resulted in the teacher being removed from the classroom.

5. The Law’s Flawed Premise

Costa Howard and her homeschool-hating colleagues have peddled a mistruth that homeschoolers are more likely to abuse their children. Per an Illinois Public Radio story: “An advocate for more homeschool regulation argued there is a link between homeschooling and abuse and neglect that often goes unnoticed.” (Yet this so-called “advocate” has failed to provide credible statistical data to that effect.)

Costa Howard continuously cites in interviews the tragic story of “L.J.,” whom she claims was abused because Illinois allows parents to homeschool their children without obtrusive government involvement. But in this sad story, as well as other examples cited by Costa Howard, the children in question weren’t actually homeschooled. Their parents did no actual educating at home and instead were simply crummy, abusive parents. But all of these children were under the surveillance of state welfare officials, who left them in abusive homes for a year or more.

Certainly, Illinois’ public education system has its fair share of problems. And in Illinois, the state’s lead child welfare agency, the Department of Children and Family Services, is universally accepted to be “beleaguered” and “troubled.” The five items mentioned above don’t even scratch the surface of what public-school families in Illinois face when it comes to a radical woke ideology that is pushed as normal, obscene transgender policies forced upon students, bullying so rampant it recently led an 11-year-old to suicide, peer pressure, school violence, and other problems that keep parents awake at night and checking their cell phones incessantly during the school day.

Homeschool families in Illinois are very aware of these issues, and these certainly are reasons enough to take on the task of educating their beloved children themselves. But parents also choose to homeschool for a litany of other reasons that are based solely on ensuring their children receive the very best education possible, in a way that is completely custom to each individual child.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.