A Civil Rights Crisis: The Dangerous Attack on Disability Protections in Schools

 The recent lawsuit, Texas v. Becerra, poses a significant threat to the rights of individuals with disabilities across the United States. Currently, seventeen states have initiated legal action challenging Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a cornerstone civil rights law that has safeguarded disabled individuals from discrimination for over five decades. This lawsuit significantly endangers the progress that has been made in disability rights over the past 50+ years.

Section 504 mandates that any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance must not discriminate against individuals based on their disabilities. This provision has been instrumental in ensuring that schools, healthcare facilities, and other institutions provide necessary accommodations, such as accessible facilities and tailored educational plans. The current lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Section 504, potentially dismantling these essential protections.

The implications of this legal challenge are profound. If successful, it could strip away critical accommodations that enable millions of Americans to participate fully in society. This includes students who rely on 504 plans for educational support and individuals who depend on accessible healthcare services in a school setting.

The lawsuit's focus on recent updates to Section 504, particularly the inclusion of gender dysphoria under the Biden administration as a recognized disability. This new rule requires schools to provide reasonable accommodations for transgender students within the school. Rather than targeting that one rule in their lawsuits, these states have included a push to do away with Section 504 completely.

In response, advocacy groups like the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) are mobilizing to defend Section 504. They urge concerned citizens to contact their state attorneys general, especially in the plaintiff states, to demand withdrawal from the lawsuit. Collective action is crucial to preserve the rights of disabled individuals.

As a society, we must remain vigilant and proactive in protecting the rights of all individuals, particularly those in marginalized communities. The attack on Section 504 is an attack on the principles of equality and inclusion that are underlying principles of our nation. It's our collective responsibility to ensure that progress is not reversed and that every individual, regardless of ability, has the opportunity to thrive.

The Risks of Dismantling the Department of Education

In recent years, there has been a growing debate over the role of the U.S. Department of Education. Last week, rumors swirled that President Trump would sign an executive order dismantling the department. Many conservatives have argued for eliminating the department for years as a move to reduce what they deem as federal overreach and return control of education to states and local governments. However, the consequences of such a move could be severe, potentially leading to increased disparities in educational quality, reduced oversight, and weakened protections for students who need them most.

The Department of Education: A Necessary Balance

Established in 1979, the Department of Education was designed to support state and local education efforts, ensuring a level playing field for students across the country. While concerns about excessive federal involvement are valid, the department provides critical functions such as distributing federal funding, enforcing civil rights protections, and promoting accountability in education systems.

Advocates for dismantling the department often cite the importance of local control. While decentralization allows for tailored educational policies, history has shown that without federal oversight, disparities between wealthy and low-income districts can widen, and underserved communities may be left behind. The department plays a vital role in ensuring that all students—regardless of socioeconomic background—have access to a quality education.

US Education funding

In 2019, the United States spent approximately $15,500 per full-time equivalent (FTE) student at the elementary and secondary levels, which was 38% higher than the average of OECD countries reporting data ($11,300). This placed the U.S. fifth in spending per student at these levels, behind Luxembourg, Norway, Austria, and the Republic of Korea. 

At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures were even higher, averaging $37,400 per FTE student. This amount was more than double the OECD average of $18,400, making the U.S. second only to Luxembourg in higher education spending. 

Despite these substantial investments, the U.S. often lags behind other nations in key educational outcomes, such as standardized test scores in math, reading, and science. This discrepancy raises questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of educational spending in the United States. 

It's important to note that while the U.S. invests heavily in education, the distribution of these funds can vary significantly across states and districts, leading to disparities in educational quality and access. This underscores the critical role of the Department of Education in promoting equitable funding and resources to ensure all students receive a quality education.

We should also note that many countries do not factor transportation costs into their education funding totals, as children often ride free on public transportation systems, particularly in large cities. In contrast, in the U.S., many districts rely on busing as the primary form of transportation to and from schools, which significantly raises costs. Additionally, most foreign countries provide government-created and distributed primary and secondary education curricula, whereas U.S. districts often spend considerable amounts on privately developed curricula, driving up education expenses. Lastly, the U.S. is one of the few nations without a public healthcare system, and the costs associated with providing healthcare for teachers are included in their employment costs, but are not a factor in education costs elsewhere in the world. These factors collectively contribute to the significantly higher cost of public education in the U.S.

The Role of Public and Private Education

Without the Department of Education, the future of public schools could become uncertain. State-driven policies could lead to significant differences in educational quality, while an expansion of private school voucher programs might divert essential funds from public institutions.

While school choice has its benefits, including increased competition and flexibility for parents, the potential risks of unchecked privatization must also be considered. Voucher programs, in particular, often do not cover the full cost of private school tuition, meaning that families who cannot afford to pay the difference are left without viable options. As a result, these programs tend to disproportionately benefit wealthier students who can already afford private education, while leaving lower-income families struggling to access high-quality schooling.

Additionally, many private schools receiving vouchers are not held to the same accountability and transparency standards as public schools, meaning that taxpayer dollars could go to institutions that do not provide adequate education or uphold civil rights protections. This redirection of public funds further weakens public schools, which serve the vast majority of American students, leading to larger class sizes, fewer resources, and reduced teacher salaries.

Proper oversight is needed to ensure that all students receive a fair and effective education, regardless of whether they attend public or private schools. Without such safeguards, the expansion of voucher programs could deepen educational inequalities rather than resolve them.

Protecting Civil Rights and Equity

One of the key functions of the Department of Education is the enforcement of laws like Title IX, which protects students from discrimination based on gender. Additionally, the department helps uphold protections for students with disabilities and ensures that federal education funds reach the schools and students who need them most.

The department also plays a crucial role in supporting special education programs through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This federal law mandates that students with disabilities receive free and appropriate public education, and the department helps provide necessary funding and resources to ensure these students have access to the support they need. Without federal oversight, states may struggle to maintain equitable special education programs, potentially leaving vulnerable students without the resources required for their success.

A careful, balanced approach is necessary. While states should have significant control over education policy, there must also be a mechanism to prevent discrimination and ensure equal opportunity for all students. Eliminating the department could weaken these safeguards, potentially leading to inconsistencies in how student rights are upheld across different states.

A Thoughtful Approach to Reform

Instead of dismantling the Department of Education, a more pragmatic approach would involve reforming it to be more efficient and responsive to local needs. Streamlining bureaucratic processes, providing more resources, and allowing for greater support to
the state and local levels could help strike a balance between national standards and local control.

Education is a cornerstone of democracy and social mobility. While it is important to evaluate and improve the role of federal oversight, a complete dismantling of the Department of Education could create unintended consequences that may harm students, educators, and communities. A collaborative, bipartisan approach is essential to ensuring that every student has access to a high-quality education, no matter where they live.

Unconstitutional Actions in Trump's Second Term

 In his second term, President Donald Trump has already undertaken several actions that have been widely criticized as unconstitutional, undermining the foundational principles of American democracy.

Our constitutional republic was formed with a broad separation of powers. Trump in his first two weeks has committed a broad assault on the constitution, which is leading to a constitutional crisis.

Assault on Birthright Citizenship

On his first day back in office, Trump issued an executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. This move directly challenges the 14th Amendment, which unequivocally grants citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Legal experts have denounced this action as a blatant violation of constitutional rights. Multiple federal judges have acted quickly to block the order, affirming its unconstitutionality.

Dismantling Democratic Institutions

In collaboration with Elon Musk, Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), purportedly to streamline federal operations. However, this initiative has led to the closure of essential government agencies, freezing of federal funds, and unauthorized access to private information. Such actions erode the checks and balances integral to the U.S. political system, concentrating power in the executive branch and sidelining legislative and judicial oversight. In the constitution, the only branch with the authority to add or eliminate a government agency or department is the legislative. As such, eliminating the Department of Education and USAID both violate the separation of powers and the constitution. Article I clearly gives this power only to Congress, and the actions taken by the President and Musk have violated this. 

Politicization of the Federal Civil Service

Trump's administration has aggressively reclassified career civil servants as political appointees, stripping them of protections and making them directly answerable to the president. This move undermines the apolitical nature of the civil service, turning public servants into instruments of the executive branch's agenda. Such actions compromise the integrity of federal agencies and violate principles designed to prevent authoritarianism. This action violates multiple laws including the Civil Service Reform Act.

Erosion of Civil Rights Protections

Through a series of executive orders, Trump has targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within federal agencies and among federal contractors. These orders seek to dismantle programs aimed at promoting equal opportunity and addressing systemic discrimination. By undermining DEI efforts, the administration is reversing decades of progress in civil rights, contravening constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

These actions represent a concerted effort to consolidate power and dismantle democratic safeguards. It is imperative for citizens and institutions alike to remain vigilant and uphold the constitutional principles that form the bedrock of the United States.

In the face of these unconstitutional actions, it is more important than ever for Americans to defend the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution itself. Trump's second-term overreach demonstrates a dangerous disregard for legal precedent and institutional norms, setting a precedent that, if left unchecked, could permanently weaken the nation's democratic foundations. Congress, the judiciary, and the public must push back against these violations, ensuring that no president—regardless of party—can place themselves above the law. The resilience of American democracy depends on an engaged and vigilant citizenry committed to upholding the Constitution.

What is USAID and What Does it Do?

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, dedicated to promoting democratic values, improving global health, alleviating poverty, and fostering economic growth in developing countries. It has been a dedicated force in accomplishing humanitarian good on behalf of the American people. However, recent actions by the Trump administration have significantly altered the agency's structure and operations, raising concerns about its future role in international development.

The Mission of USAID

Established in 1961, USAID's mission is to advance democratic values, enhance global health, reduce poverty, and stimulate economic growth in developing nations. The agency operates in over 100 countries and supports communities in their efforts to achieve healthier, more productive lives. Historically, USAID has focused on building resilience in areas such as education, healthcare, food security, economic development, and governance.

Recent Developments Under the Trump Administration

In early 2025, the Trump administration initiated significant changes to USAID, including:

• Staff Reductions: Plans were announced to reduce USAID's workforce from over 10,000 employees to approximately 300, focusing on essential personnel. This move has led to widespread furloughs and resignations, disrupting ongoing projects and operations.

• Freeze on Foreign Aid: A near-total freeze on foreign assistance was implemented, with exceptions made only for humanitarian aid. This freeze has halted numerous development programs, affecting millions of people worldwide.

• Integration into the State Department: Actions are underway to merge USAID into the State Department, aiming to streamline operations and align foreign aid with the administration's priorities. This restructuring has raised concerns about the agency's autonomy and effectiveness, as well as whether this change is unconstitutional.

Implications of These Changes

The restructuring of USAID under the Trump administration has led to several challenges:

• Operational Disruptions: The reduction in staff and resources has impaired the agency's ability to monitor and distribute aid effectively, potentially leading to inefficiencies and increased risks of aid misallocation.

• Impact on Development Programs: Critical programs addressing health crises, education, and economic development have been suspended or scaled back, affecting vulnerable populations globally.

• Legal Challenges: The rapid changes have faced legal opposition, with unions and advocacy groups filing lawsuits to halt the cuts and protect the agency's mission.

Conclusion

USAID has historically played a pivotal role in international development, fostering global stability and prosperity. The recent restructuring efforts by the Trump administration have introduced significant challenges, potentially altering the agency's capacity to fulfill its mission. As these developments continue to unfold, the future of USAID remains uncertain, with ongoing debates about the best approach to foreign aid and international development.

Profiling Current Candidates for the 2024 Presidential Election

 As the nation prepares for another pivotal presidential election, the diverse backgrounds of the candidates on the stage offer a panorama of experiences, perspectives, and ideologies. In this blog post, we will delve into the backgrounds of prominent current presidential candidates, including former President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden, as well as notable figures Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron DeSantis, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Understanding the journeys and convictions of these individuals is crucial for voters seeking an informed perspective on the upcoming election.

1. Donald Trump: The 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, emerged from a business background, real estate mogul and television personality. His unconventional approach to politics and emphasis on economic policies, hot button topics and America First vision defined his presidency. Elected in 2016, Trump's tenure left a lasting impact on the political landscape, contributing to ongoing debates on issues ranging from immigration to trade.

2. 
   

3. Joe Biden: Joe Biden, the 46th President of the United States, has dedicated much of his life to public service. Born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Biden's long political career includes decades as a U.S. Senator from Delaware and service as Vice President under Barack Obama. His 2020 campaign focused on unity, healthcare, and social justice, and his presidency has been marked by efforts to address the COVID-19 pandemic and promote economic recovery.

4. 
   

5. Chris Christie: Former Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, has a background deeply rooted in law and governance. His career as a lawyer and U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey laid the foundation for his two terms as governor. Known for his direct approach to politics, Christie tackled fiscal issues, pension reform, and disaster response, earning both praise and criticism for his leadership style.

6. 
   

7. Nikki Haley: Nikki Haley, former Ambassador to the United Nations, brings a unique perspective to the political stage. Born in South Carolina to immigrant parents from India, Haley's political journey began after a successful career in business. As Governor of South Carolina, she gained national recognition for her response to the Charleston church shooting and has been an advocate for diplomacy and global engagement.

8. 
   

9. Vivek Ramaswamy: Entrepreneur and author Vivek Ramaswamy represents a new wave of voices entering the political arena. Known for his views on corporate culture, Ramaswamy challenges the role of corporations in societal matters. His entry into politics signals a growing trend of non-traditional candidates contributing diverse perspectives to the national discourse.

10. 
    

11. Ron DeSantis: Current Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, has a background rooted in military service and law. A Harvard Law School graduate and U.S. Navy officer, DeSantis served in Iraq before transitioning to politics. As governor, he has championed conservative policies, focusing on issues such as environmental conservation, education reform, and pandemic response.

12. 
    

13. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a member of the prominent Kennedy family, brings a legacy deeply intertwined with American politics. As a lawyer and environmental activist, Kennedy has been a prominent advocate for social and environmental justice. His work in vaccine safety and environmental causes reflects the ongoing commitment of the Kennedy family to societal issues.

The wide variety of backgrounds and experiences among these candidates and influential figures reflects the diversity inherent in American politics. As voters weigh their options in the upcoming election, understanding the multifaceted perspectives of these individuals becomes integral to making informed decisions that align with the nation's values and aspirations for the future.

Why Do We Have the Same Number of Representatives That We had 100 years ago?

In the constitution, the duty of assigning the number of representatives is granted to Congress. The constitution states "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative."

A proposed amendment included in the original package of amendments now known as the Bill of Rights capped the number of individuals one representative could represent at 50,000. 

The last time a full apportionment including increasing sets raised the number of members of the House of Representatives at 433. This was in 1911, and we have only increased the number to 435 by adding the states of Hawaii and Alaska. When the permanent apportionment act was passed in 1929, the US population was approximately 121,767,000. US population is expected to shortly climb to above 330 million individuals. At that time, it meant each representative represented about 281,000 people. Now each representative in the House represents over 758,000 individuals. Is it no surprise that members of Congress are often very out of touch with the individuals they represent? 

Additionally, smaller states are overrepresented while larger states are underrepresented. The Electoral College, which is based partly on the number of congressional representatives, is skewed by the current imbalance. This contributes to the perception that votes in some states carry more weight than in others, undermining the principle of equal representation.

Worldwide Legislative Size

How does this stack up to the rest of the world, though? We are the worst in the world for representation. The next worst is Japan at one representative per 272,000. The graphic below from Vox shows clearly why the US house desperately needs to be expanded to increase our nation's democracy. If the US had the same proportions as Japan we would have 1223 representatives. 

Congress this year had the ability to increase this number to make us more representative, but once again we have pushed off a desperate need. One proposal referred to as the "Wyoming rule" would make the smallest state by population, Wyoming, as the basis for the smallest district possible. This would increase the size of the US House of Representatives to 573, or one representative per 575,000 individuals. This more modest proposal would help to fix the many issues, but we need to do more to uncap the house and make our democracy more representative of our nation, and more accessible to individuals.

What about the House chambers? They couldn't handle that number of Representatives, right? Well, rarely are all members of the house in the chambers, but the capitol was specifically designed by George Washington with it's large dome with the intent that it would expand as needed. Temporarily, new members could be in the gallery if needed for the State of the Union and other major speeches. Other accommodations such as secured distance voting could also be allowed. 

The Benefits of Expanding the House

Restoring Proportional Representation

Increasing the number of seats would better align representation with population growth. A larger House would ensure that representatives are more directly accountable to their constituents and can advocate more effectively for their specific needs.

Improving Electoral Fairness

A bigger House would also lead to a fairer Electoral College. By redistributing electoral votes more equitably, presidential elections would more accurately reflect the will of the people.

Enhancing Diversity

A larger House would allow for a broader range of voices in government. More seats mean greater opportunities for candidates from underrepresented communities, leading to a Congress that better reflects the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity of the U.S. population.

Reducing the Influence of Big Money in Politics

With smaller districts, the cost of running for office would decrease. Candidates could rely less on large donations and Super PACs, making elections more accessible to grassroots campaigns and ordinary citizens rather than corporate-backed candidates.

 

Where do we go from here as a nation?

The 2020 election concluded when the last polls closed on November 3, 2020. In the following days, final vote tallies were completed, some states conducted recounts, and the process reached its conclusion. There is little doubt that the outcome—a Biden victory—will remain unchanged. The question now is: where do we go from here?

The past two decades have been among the most divisive in modern American history. Our nation bears deep wounds that must be healed, with divisions that have been exacerbated by increasing tribalism and partisanship. It is imperative that we learn from recent history and find a way to move forward together. The challenges ahead demand unity, and the way we have operated over the last twenty years cannot define the next decade.

As a lifelong registered Republican, my lack of support for Trump has never been a surprise to those who know me. There is a common misconception among Trump supporters that opposition to him stemmed solely from partisan loyalty. However, I did not vote for Clinton or Trump in 2016, fully aware that my preferred candidate would not take office in 2017. My opposition to Trump was not about party allegiance; it was rooted in disagreement with many of his policies and leadership style over the past four years. In the same way, I opposed Obama on numerous issues throughout his presidency, while also acknowledging his successes. Like anyone, I have personal biases against Trump, but I have also made a conscious effort to listen to his supporters, to understand their frustrations and aspirations. Many of them feel that their faith, their vision of America, and their political ideology have been under attack for the past twelve years.

At the same time, there is a misconception among many Democrats that Trump supporters are predominantly ignorant or racist, that they harbor hatred toward people of color and embrace bigotry. From my experience, this is simply not true. Many Trump supporters are compassionate, decent people in their everyday lives. Their support for Trump was based on a variety of reasons, and if we are to move forward as a nation, it is critical that we listen and seek to understand those reasons.

There are good people in both parties. What we must stop doing is labeling and dismissing each other. Instead, we should commit to listening more, engaging in thoughtful reflection, and striving to find common ground. I personally am making a commitment to listen and reflect more, and I hope that in the coming years, others will do the same. Reuniting as a country requires meaningful dialogue, especially with those we disagree with. We don’t have to agree on everything, but we should strive for compromise and progress. I hope this shift occurs not only in Washington but also in our own homes.

May God bless America.

Beyond Red and Blue: Breaking Free from Political Tribalism

Our country is deeply divided—on politics, religion, culture, and more. The divisions are growing, fueled by an “us vs. them” mentality that does more harm than good. Instead of seeking common ground, we often build walls between ourselves, seeing political opponents as enemies rather than fellow citizens with differing viewpoints.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this divide is the way arguments are framed. Straw man arguments dominate the conversation, reducing complex issues to oversimplified attacks.

For example, some people point to certain states to argue that one party is superior to the other. California (a blue state) has problems. Mississippi (a red state) has problems. Neither party controls an entire state from top to bottom, and no county in America votes 100% for one candidate. The reality is far more nuanced than "blue states bad" or "red states bad."

Likewise, labeling an idea as "left" or "right" doesn’t shut down the discussion—or at least, it shouldn’t. Policies should be judged on their merits, not on who proposes them. I agree with Bernie Sanders on campaign finance reform, but I also disagree with him on other issues. The same goes for Biden, Trump, Warren, Cruz, and Paul. No politician is right (or wrong) about everything. Even Sanders and Cruz have voted together at times.

Yet, we often reject ideas not because of what is said, but because of who said it. This is the essence of tribalism, or what I like to call “team sports politics.”

The Problem with Team Sports Politics

Think about a die-hard football fan. If you ask a New England Patriots fan whether Tom Brady cheated, they’ll likely deny it. But ask almost any other NFL fan, and they’ll say he absolutely did. Their judgment isn’t based on facts—it’s based on loyalty.

The same thing happens in politics. People dismiss or accept ideas based on party affiliation rather than evaluating them critically. Imagine taking a quote and presenting it as either from Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz—the reaction would often depend more on the name than the content.

This kind of thinking creates blind spots. It prevents us from truly engaging with new ideas, from challenging our beliefs, and from growing as a nation.

Evaluating Ideas, Not Identities

If we want to move beyond tribalism, we must start evaluating policies and candidates based on substance, not party affiliation. It’s okay to disagree, but let’s base those disagreements on facts and principles rather than partisan loyalty.

Here are some of the most pressing issues in America today that deserve real discussion:

• Immigration
• Tax Reform (higher vs. lower taxes, loopholes, corporate taxes, etc.)
• Healthcare (Medicare for All, Obamacare, full privatization, deregulation, etc.)
• Spending & National Debt
• Infrastructure
• The Role of Government

Each of these issues affects all Americans, regardless of party affiliation. As we approach another election, it's more important than ever to research multiple perspectives, evaluate real data, and form independent opinions. If we do not have these discussions, how can we move forward as a nation? How will we ever see decreasing deficits ever again? 

A Warning from History

Even George Washington warned about the dangers of political factions. In his farewell address, he cautioned:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge... leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism... The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual.”

Washington feared that partisan loyalty would eventually lead to tyranny, as people placed party allegiance above the good of the nation. More than two centuries later, we’re seeing just how prophetic his words were.

The Path Forward

If we ever hope to bridge the divide, it won’t come from shouting each other down. It will come from engaging with people, truly listening, and considering ideas outside our personal echo chambers.

It starts with trust—trusting that people on the other side of the aisle aren’t evil, but simply have different perspectives. It starts with humility—being willing to question our own beliefs. And it starts with respect—acknowledging that political opponents are still fellow Americans who care about the country, even if we disagree on how to improve it.

So as the next election approaches, I challenge you: Look at the facts. Seek out different perspectives. Engage in real conversations.

Because the future of this country depends on our ability to see each other not as enemies, but as fellow citizens.