Representatives.”(2) “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” (3) “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”¹ Thus, the vital powers of government are identified and described in the first sentence of each of the first three Articles of our founding document. What could be more simple and yet profound in the establishment of a nation?

Now, here’s a question: How did our Founding Fathers understand that there are three vital powers of government? Why not two? Or, as with many nations, why not only one? Could it be that they were familiar with principles enunciated in the Bible centuries ago?

So what we have in Isaiah’s 8^th-century B.C. prophecy is divine guidance that was, whether intentionally or not, followed by the Founding Fathers of the United States 2,500 years later. They implemented in the founding documents of our nation profound yet simple principles laid out by God in the Bible ages before.

We are not surprised that our Founding Fathers would have taken note of this, for they were, by and large, extremely Bible literate. They knew and appreciated the great value of the Bible, and this is reflected over and over in their work. It is reflected in the common law which they inherited and in the vast array of both criminal and civil laws which they furthered and made possible.³ Many of these we take for granted today, not even realizing their divine source.

When God the Father (the divine Lawgiver) sent His Son to execute His will, Jesus Christ was acting as the divine Executive. And the Holy Spirit, Who provides order and clarity always, supplied the necessary judicial power for such an intelligent system to function smoothly. Working together in harmony and unity of purpose, the three Persons of the Godhead remind us of the three functions of all legitimate and effective governmental systems.

When the Founding Fathers of America issued their statement of justification for cutting ties to their Mother country in order to form a new nation, they alluded to the notion of “unalienable rights.”¹ Where did they derive this notion? Did it arise from political philosophy to which they had been exposed? Did they believe in the theory of evolution, concluding that humans should receive no special, moral treatment based solely on their humanness?² Or was the source of their thinking on this subject drawn directly from the Bible? FACT: It came from the Bible. Consider the following listing of unalienable rights affirmed, defined, and delineated from Scripture:

Affirmed:

“[A]ll men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”³

Defined:

“Those sacred rights which God himself from the infinity of his benevolence has bestowed upon mankind.”⁴

Delineated:⁵

Life—God gave us life; no one is permitted to take that life, except under conditions the Creator gives by which it might be done by duly constituted authority.

Acts 17:25; 1 Timothy 6:13; Job 12:10; Isaiah 42:5; Daniel 5:23

Liberty—Freedom to make own decisions, control own actions, exercise own volition, change situations, move wherever one desires to move (under constraints of law)—the exercise of free will.[6]

Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15; Ezekiel 18:4ff.; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Revelation 22:17

Pursuit of Happiness—Right to pursue one’s own advantage and enjoyment (within moral limits), including selection of vocation, profession, trade, or business.

Joshua 1:15; Psalm 128:2; Ecclesiastes 2:24; 3:13; 5:18; 1 Timothy 6:17

Private Property—Acquired by one’s own lawful, moral labor.

Genesis 2:15; 3:17-19; Ecclesiastes 3:13; Isaiah 65:22; Matthew 20:13-15; Acts 5:4; 1 Corinthians 9:4-10; Ephesians 4:28

Family Relations—A scriptural marriage.

Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Matthew 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:1-2; 9:5

Family Relations—Bear/rear/educate/care for one’s own children

John 9:23; Ephesians 5:31; 6:1; Colossians 3:20; Romans 1:30; Hebrews 13:4

Right to Worship—Pursue Christianity and worship God according to own understanding of the

Bible—as long as not harmful or immoral.

Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 4:10; 2 Kings 17:36; 1 Chronicles 16:29; Psalm 96:9; John 4:23; Revelation 22:9

Self-Preservation—The right to defend/protect self, family, and property.

Genesis 9:6; 14:14-20; Exodus 22:2-3; Nehemiah 4:13-20; Esther 8:11; 9:5; Matthew 24:42-44; John 18:36; Hebrews 11:32-34; James 2:8

Endnotes:

¹ For more discussion of this topic, see Dave Miller (2017), God & Government (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), pp. 13-36.

² Kyle Butt (2008), “Dawkins Does Not Believe ‘Men’ Have Unalienable Rights,” https://apologeticspress.org/dawkins-does-not-believe-men-have-unalienable-rights-2477/.

³ “Declaration of Independence: A Transcription,” National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript.

⁴ John Dickinson (1766), An Address to the Committee of Correspondence in Barbados. Occasioned by a Late Letter from Them to Their Agent in London (Philadelphia, PA: William Bradford), p. 4. John Dickinson (1732-1808) was a prominent Founder. He was homeschooled by a tutor and became an attorney/politician and served during the Revolution as a Militia Brigadier-General. He served as a member of the Continental Congress and a delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787. He served as Governor of both Delaware and Pennsylvania and was among the wealthiest men in the British American colonies. He wrote Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, and was a signer of the Constitution. Like Dickinson, a host of the Founders alluded to and expounded on the notion of “unalienable rights.” For example, Dan Foster (1775), A Short Essay on Civil Government (Hartford, CT: Ebenezer Watson), pp. 17,24; Thomas Jefferson (1774), A Summary View of the Rights of British America (London: G. Kearsly), p. 19; William Wells (1865), The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.), 3:325; Bird Wilson (1804), The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia, PA: Lorenzo Press), 1:104; 2:454.

⁵ This listing is not intended to be exhaustive.

⁶ For a discussion of slavery as depicted in the Bible, see Kyle Butt (2005), “The Bible & Slavery,” Reason & Revelation, 25[6]:41-47, June; Dave Miller (2005), “Philemon & Slavery,” Reason & Revelation, 4[6]:21-R, June; Eric Lyons (2018), “Did Paul Endorse Slavery?” Reason & Revelation, 38[1]:2-4, January.

• Of the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention, all but five were Masons.²

• Ninety-eight percent of the Founding Fathers of the United States were Masons.³

• A Who's-Who of the American Revolution is almost a Who's-Who of American colonial Freemasonry.⁴

Since American Freemasonry today does express so many anti-Christian teachings, it would be a real concern if the Founding Fathers were indeed Freemasons."

Barton continues by spelling out the specific ideas expressed by today's Masons, which are clearly anti-Christian. Then he goes on to identify four distinct time periods in American Masonic history, describing the characteristics of each.

"Generally speaking, the evolution of the institution of Freemasonry can be divided into distinct epochs...".

Most holy and glorious Lord God.... in Thy name we assemble and meet together, most humbly beseeching Thee to bless us in all our undertakings, that we may know and serve Thee aright, that all our doings may tend to Thy glory and the salvation of our souls.... This we most humbly beg, in the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Amen.

"Would this prayer be presented as a model prayer for American lodges today? Absolutely not.

"While the current practice of Freemasonry studiously avoid the use of the name "Jesus" and official references to Christianity in Lodge activities or prayers, it was just the opposite for early American Lodges. For example, in 1749, Charles Brockwell reminded a Masonic Lodge that:

[W]however is an upright Mason can neither be an athiest, deist, or libertine; for he is under the strictest obligation to be ... a true Christian.⁵ (Emphasis added)

"A 1769 work by moral philosopher Wellims Calcott (1726-1779) - A Candid Disquisition of the Principles and Practices of the Most Ancient and Honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons - similarly declared:

[A] good Mason is a good man, and a good Christian.⁶

"American Freemasonry in the time of the Founders rejected the current repulsive oaths.⁷ Clearly, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that early American Freemasonry was in no way hostile to the teachings of orthodox Christianity; to the contrary, it jealously embraced those teachings and regularly invited Christian ministries into its Lodges to preach sermons, conduct Christian services, and cooperate in furthering Christian ministry opportunities and services."

Endnotes:

¹ The New Standard Alphabetical Indexed Bible [Masonic Edition] (Chicago Hertel Co, 1951), p 23.

² Manly P. Hall, America's Assignment with Destiny (1951), p. 97; see also Masons As Makers, p. 47;  and "What is Freemasonry? What is a Secret Society?" Freemasonry and Secret Societies (at http://www.plim.org/freemasonp1.htm; accessed on August 10, 2010)

³ "The Masonic Founding of the United States of America," Global Insights (at http://www.nohoax.com/masonic_founding.htm (accessed on August 10, 2010)

⁴ William Bramley, The Gods of Eden (New York, Acorn Books, 1990), p. 279.

⁵ Charles Brockwell, Brotherly Love Recommended in a Sermon Preached Before the Ancient and Honorable Society of Free and Acceoted Masons in Christ Church, Boston on Wednesday, the 27th of December, 1749 (Boston, John Draper, 1749), p. 14.

⁶ Wellims Calcott, A Candid Disquisition of the Principles and Practices of the Most Ancient and Honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons (London, William M Alpine, 1771), p. 169.

⁷ In 1986, the Grand Lodges in England finally discovered and removed these blood oaths from the English rituals; the English York Rite did the same in 1989

Nick Freitas speaking at AmFest 2025.   

California teachers and administrators for whom the PRISM LGBTQ training runs counter to their religious and moral values are asked to contact The National Center for Law and Policy, who can provide guidance with filing an appropriate religious exemption.

Following law school graduation, while starting his civil litigation practice, he was invited to become an affiliate attorney of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), from which Dean has received extensive training in pro-family, pro-life and pro-religious liberty matters at ADF’s outstanding National Litigation Academies (NLA). Because of Dean’s pro-bono work, he was invited to receive special training at ADF’s advanced NLA. Dean is proud to be an ADF affiliate attorney and member of ADF’s honor guard.

The Children's Education Opportunity Act is the latest attempt at providing California parents maximum flexibility when it comes to the education of their children.

2. Parents choose the best education option for their child
Parents select an eligible school that suits their child best.Options range from public and charter schools to private, faith-based institutions, and homeschooling. The chosen school coordinates with the ESA Trust board to allocate funds for educational expenses. Parents do not handle the money directly; transactions occur between the state-controlled ESA and the selected school.

3. Covered education expenses under the Education Savings Account
The ESA covers various educational expenses, including

•  transportation to and from school and school-related activities

4. Unused ESA funds roll over annually and accrue interest
Any unused funds within the student's ESA carry over each year, accruing interest to support future educational expenses throughout the student's life. This is not a voucher program where you lose the funding if you do not use it that year.

If you would like to help in the effort to gather enough signatures to get this important initiative on the 2026 ballot, please let us know.

One Board's Solution for Declining Budgets

Typically, departing staff members aren’t required to inform the district that they’re not returning until June 30, Mountain View Whisman spokesperson Shelly Hausman said. However, March and April are prime months for recruiting and hiring the best teachers, she added. With this new stipend, the district is aiming to make more effective staffing decisions throughout the spring. 

“When staffing levels match student needs, schools can provide the right mix of classroom teachers and support staff, reducing changes in summer and in August and fewer disruptions for students and staff,” Hausman wrote in an email to the Voice.

The newly established stipend does not require staff to notify the district early, but administrators hope that it will incentivize anyone who is on the fence about whether to return to decide sooner rather than later, Hausman said. 

This comes at a time when the district is planning to make budget cuts that are likely to impact staffing levels. Last month, the school board directed administrators to plan to reduce spending by at least $9 million in response to sluggish revenue growth. 

By the end of January, the board is expected to receive formal recommendations on where to make reductions. Administrators are considering recommending that the board approve laying off 15% of the staff at the district office. That would save roughly $4 million, less than half the total that the district is looking to cut.

The Battle Upstream:

Challenging the false belief causing medical harm

There is a parable that is well-known in the medical world. A man is walking along the side of a river when he hears a cry for help. Someone is drowning in the current. He jumps in and pulls the person to safety. Then another person goes by, and another, and another. He keeps at it—saving some, losing others, until he starts to become exhausted. Finally, he realises what he should have realised from the start: he needs to go upstream to find out what’s causing all these people to end up in the river. So up he goes, and there he discovers a monster throwing people into the water.

And that’s when his real fight begins.

In the scandal of gender medicine right now, nations all over the world are that man downstream beside the river. Some, like the United States, are scrambling to save as many victims as they can—with legislation, litigation, and age restrictions aimed at protecting minors.

Others, like Canada (with the exception of Alberta) continue to watch as victims get swept away by the powerful current, not just failing to lift a hand to help, but standing on the riverbank cheering and applauding the carnage.

All the actions to protect young people from this medical scandal must be applauded. But let’s be clear: these victories are downstream. Many are fragile, and quite possibly temporary. Many can be swept away with one change of government and the stroke of a politician’s pen. Then the harm begins anew.

So it is essential to go upstream in search of the monster.

Now, as everyone in this room already knows, this idea did not emerge from new research about biology or brain sex. It did not come from any groundbreaking discovery of an inner gender essence called a “gender identity” that is fixed and immutable.

It came from trans activism.

The belief was first conceived in the late 1980s, when early trans activists gathered behind the scenes and began plotting their assault on reality. These activists decided that they no longer wanted to be classified as mentally ill or sexually deviant. They didn’t like the stigma; it didn’t suit their political goals.

And because they had the power and the political might, they were able to bring this monster to life.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health, a political activist group that masquerades as a medical association, eagerly jumped on board and launched its depsychopathologization campaign in 2010—framing transgender identities as natural and healthy, and clearing the way for mass medicalization on demand.

The American Psychiatric Association buckled to activist demands next, scrapping gender identity disorder for gender dysphoria—the identity was now healthy; only the distress was labeled disordered.

So, to be absolutely clear: an entire field of medicine was built on a false belief—a fiction created by a political movement to serve its own agenda.

And at no point did anyone stop to question what would be the ramifications of redefining a psychiatric disorder as perfectly healthy and opening up access to medical body modification on demand as a human right.

Of course, anyone paying attention could have foreseen the looming catastrophe. And from where we stand in 2025, we know that the worst case scenario did indeed come to pass.

So, more and more, the gender debate is shifting back towards the reality that trans is a mental illness.

But actually defining it precisely as a psychiatric disorder is not quite as straightforward as it may seem.

A few years ago, I asked psychiatrist Az Hakeem whether transgender people are “mad,” and he gave me a beautiful answer. He said: “they’re not mad. They’re confused, and perhaps autistic, and they’ve come to the wrong conclusion.

The madness lies in how society responds to these individuals. Because we don’t try to help them; instead, we collude in this mad way.”

Extreme Overvalued Beliefs

So, this conversation left me wondering: If trans people aren’t mad, how could sane people behave in such an insane way? How could anyone who is mentally well be so fixated on obtaining such disfiguring health-destroying surgeries?

The answer lies in an obscure psychiatric concept called the overvalued idea or the extreme overvalued belief.

Now, the first time I ever heard the phrase “overvalued idea” was in that very conversation I had with Az Hakeem, but at the time, I confess, I didn’t understand what he meant, and so the significance of it completely passed me by.

It was only later, when I encountered the same concept in a 1995 article by the great Dr. Paul McHugh, that I realized this was the missing piece—and suddenly everything fell into place.

First described by psychiatrist Carl Wernicke in 1892—he called it an overvalued idea—it provides that all important missing link—by differentiating pathological, all-consuming beliefs from delusions and obsessions. The definition on the slide is by Tahir Rahman who elaborated on the concept and called it an “extreme overvalued belief.”

So, a delusion is a false belief that is not shared by others, and delusions are often bizarre and idiosyncratic—such as “aliens are communicating with me through the radio.”

Obsessions are intrusive thoughts that the individual finds disturbing and distressing—often resulting in compulsive behaviors that seek to alleviate the distress.

So you can see that trans fits into neither definition. But it does fit perfectly into the category of an extreme overvalued belief.

These beliefs aren’t bizarre and idiosyncratic like a delusion, and they aren’t unwanted and distressing like an obsession. They’re rigidly held, non-delusional convictions, shared by others in the culture or subculture, relished by the individual, and defended with passion until they harden into certainty.

Crucially, the person doesn’t see their conviction as abnormal at all; to the holder, the belief is entirely rational—because so many others around them also share it. Over time it grows stronger, more resistant to challenge, and ultimately powerful enough to drive action—even violence—in its service.

In fact, this little-known psychiatric concept is most often applied to understanding extreme acts of violence.

From the mass shootings by white supremacists in Norway, Christchurch, and Buffalo, to school shooters from Columbine to Sandy Hook, the perpetrators were not psychotic. They were propelled by powerful beliefs—shared, amplified in subcultures, and reinforced until those beliefs consumed their whole being.

And those deadly contagions are twofold: not only do the beliefs spread, but the acts themselves become templates. Every shooting inspires the next; every manifesto and every headline fuels another isolated young man to commit mass murder.

And now, tragically relevant, we appear to be witnessing the birth of another frightening contagion borne out of extreme overvalued belief: the targeted assassin, where the violent young male fixates on a single symbolic enemy.

Transgender Identification as an Extreme Overvalued Belief

Just as these violent actions are fueled by overvalued ideas, so too is the trans phenomenon—very different in expression, but identical in structure.

In the case of this contagion, the overvalued belief is that being trans is natural, healthy—that trans is a whole new kind of person.

Think about it: these kids aren’t identifying as having a poorly defined psychiatric disorder called gender dysphoria. They’re certainly not identifying as having a paraphilia. They’re identifying as trans—a reified identity now celebrated as a brave new way to be human.

Once young people collide with this dangerous belief loose in our culture, they plunge themselves into the worlds of TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram, endless feeds that glorify and amplify the belief until it consumes them.

The idea is simple, emotionally charged, highly transmissible, and very very alluring: your suffering has a single cause—you are trans—and your salvation lies in medical body modification.

All the way back in 1892, Wernicke observed that these beliefs don’t start out as all-consuming; they become overvalued in incremental steps, and they can only take hold when no countervailing perspectives are present in a person’s life.

More than a century later, we see exactly what he described, but Wernicke could never have imagined the hermetically sealed digital echo chambers of the internet, where no corrective forces can penetrate.

The result is chillingly predictable: exposure to extreme ideas, reinforcement by those in the culture or subculture, and then action. For some, the action is violence against others. For others, it is violence against their own bodies—castration, mastectomy, phalloplasty.

Like violence, the trans contagion is also twofold: not only does the belief that trans is natural and healthy spread, but so too does its medical embodiment. Every celebrity showered with adoration for coming out as trans, every student applauded by teachers and peers, becomes a template that draws more vulnerable young people in— who then absorb the belief, become all-consumed by it, and pursue radical, permanent disfigurement in its name.

Because this is the key difference. Society recognizes the beliefs that lead to murder as dangerous and pathological. But when the overvalued belief is “I am trans” society does the opposite. Governments enshrine it in law. Doctors pick up their syringes and scalpels. The media romanticizes it. And schools don’t just celebrate it; they teach it as scientific fact.

And anyone who suggests the belief is harmful is swiftly punished.

Again: The madness lies in society.

The Rhythm of History

As the famous saying goes: history doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme.

The parable I opened with comes from the book Try to Remember, by Dr. Paul McHugh, which is an account of his battle the last time large swathes of society fell under the spell of a dangerous, overvalued belief unleashed by a political movement.

Then it was the belief in repressed memories—the idea that a person could endure years of the most horrific child sex abuse but have no memory of it until they found themselves under the care of an “expert” in recovered memory therapy.

McHugh tells of pulling three desperate men out of the river. Loving fathers and uncles who suddenly found themselves accused of the most heinous crimes by female relatives swept up by the madness. After the third, McHugh realised he had to go upstream.

What he found was a gang of psychiatrists consumed by this overvalued belief, whose actions resulted in hundreds of thousands of false accusations of child sex abuse, normally against loving parents or family members. These allegations fell like a bomb on households, obliterating loving relationships, shattering reputations, and destroying lives.

It’s hard to believe that we didn’t learn from this catastrophe, but here we are again, just a few decades later, in the exact same place.

Only now, the belief has captured not just psychiatry, but endocrinology and surgery as well. Whole branches of medicine have fallen under its spell. And that is what makes it so dangerous.

It is not only patients who are consumed by the belief. It is the doctors too. WPATH is their insulated echo chamber—where no counteracting views or opposing ideas can penetrate. So they march forward—injecting hormones, amputating healthy organs—true believers in the fantasy that the 21st century has unveiled a new kind of human being.

And pathology spreads beyond the clinic. Parents who tell effeminate boys they are girls. Teachers who secretly transition children behind their parents’ backs. Politicians who zealously pass laws to ensure the scandal continues. All acting pathologically. All in service of the same belief.

Once again: the madness lies in society.

Re-psychopathologization

Which is why today, Genspect is officially calling for the re-psychopathologization of transgender identities, through the lens of the extreme overvalued belief. Not to stigmatize. Not to marginalize. But to restore clarity and compassion.

Because this IS a pathological condition—an all-consuming fixation that demands careful psychiatric intervention.

Whether the trans-identified person is an autogynephilic man, a gender nonconforming homosexual, or an autistic adolescent muddling through puberty—if they have come to the conclusion that their trans identity is healthy, and it is their body that needs to be fixed, that is the wrong conclusion. What they need is not hormones or surgeries, but ethical psychotherapeutic support to help them recognize that the belief itself is pathological.

The 2010 declaration by WPATH to “de-psychopathologize” “gender variance” was not based on scientific discovery but on political advocacy. And it unleashed catastrophic harm by framing ethical psychotherapy as conversion therapy and igniting a social contagion.

But it wouldn’t be accurate to say that WPATH’s campaign failed. One of the goals of depsychopathologization was to secure full unfettered access to hormones and surgeries for anyone who desired them. So in that sense, it was actually a roaring success.

But time’s up WPATH: Fifteen years of harm is fifteen years too many.

Genspect’s call for re-psychopathologization is not motivated by politics. It is motivated by truth and respect for the Hippocratic Oath. And by the duty to protect children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults from being consumed by this dangerous belief.

Yet, re-psychopathologization must be grounded in compassion, recognising that the young people caught up in this are innocent victims, who, in a state of extreme vulnerability, were thrown into the powerful current. These victims had the misfortune of coming of age in an era of collective madness, when safeguarding was abandoned at the altar of politics and medical body modification was sold as the cure for adolescent angst. They are blameless. And many are afraid.

They deserve care and understanding—but above all, they deserve the truth.

So Genspect calls upon governments, medical associations, and psychiatric bodies to abandon WPATH, to reject the ideological incoherence of depsychopathologization, and restore safeguarding by recognizing the pathological belief driving transgender identities.

A Plea to Those Who Shape Culture

Before I close, I must speak to all who play a role in shaping our culture: journalists, activists, educators, politicians, and every public figure taking part in this debate.

First, to a certain cohort of journalists. Understand the weight of your influence. Put a trans celebrity on a magazine cover, glorify a trans identity, and you strengthen this dangerous belief.

Repeat activist misinformation—like ‘gender-affirming care is life-saving,’ or smear those protecting children as ‘anti-trans’—and you fortify the overvalued belief that salvation lies in irreversible medical interventions.

But my plea goes further. To activists who spread this belief. To teachers who pass it on to children. To politicians who enshrined it into law without even understanding it. You are all complicit in sustaining the harmful belief driving this scandal.

By oversimplifying complex issues for votes or clicks, stripping away nuance, and reducing everything to us versus them—trans allies versus transphobes, the virtuous left versus the fascist far right—opposing viewpoints are demonized resulting in those essential countervailing perspectives being shut out. This creates the perfect conditions for dangerous overvalued beliefs to become all-consuming.

Remember this: people act on these beliefs in different ways, but the pattern is the same. One engraves political slogans on his bullets. Another has a surgeon engrave customized mastectomy scars on her body.

Those of us in the public sphere must recognize the power we hold. We can either fan the flames of these dangerous beliefs, or we can help extinguish them. Choose carefully.

Slay the Monster

Now, I know some people think this monster is too powerful—that it can’t be beaten, and therefore the fight is not worth waging.

But let’s remember how all this began. Back in the 1980s, a small group of trans activists hatched a plot: to take an absurd, illogical overvalued belief—that being transgender is innate, natural, healthy—and force all of society to live in a fictional world built on it.

Given the sheer audacity of that plot, I find it hard to believe there weren’t voices of doubt. Naysayers saying it couldn’t be done. But if such voices existed, they were ignored. And the activists pressed on until they succeeded in nothing less than reshaping reality itself.

And they didn’t just persuade people to politely look the other way.

They rallied good, decent people to march in the streets demanding that teenagers sacrifice their health, their fertility, and their sexual function in the name of this belief.

They convinced governments to write laws based on a non-existent, fictional concept.

They enlisted well-meaning teachers to poison the minds of a generation with absurd lies.

And they drove doctors to amputate healthy organs and call it medicine.

If they could succeed in creating that false reality, then surely we can succeed in restoring truth. Because our cause is not built on lies but on logic and reason. Not on ideology but on sound ethical principles. Not on harm but on healing.

And so we return to the parable. We cannot stay downstream forever, pulling injured bodies from the current while the monster wreaks havoc upstream. We must confront it head on. Because this belief is too dangerous and too destructive to be left standing. We simply have no choice but to defeat it.

Christian Teachers Must Remain Strong!

Guide me in your truth and teach me, for you are God my Savior...  Psalm 25:5

is no mere professional development. It is an ideological loyalty test demanding that educators affirm beliefs about gender and sexuality that directly contradict biblical truth.

Yet there is good news: Christian teachers do not have to surrender their faith to keep their jobs. Under both the First Amendment and federal and state civil rights laws, they have the right to request a religious exemption from trainings that violate their sincerely held beliefs.

That’s why the National Center for Law and Policy, led by constitutional attorney Dean Broyles, is stepping forward to defend teachers of faith who refuse to compromise their convictions. “Teachers’ civil rights do not evaporate when they enter our public schools,” Broyles said. “California’s coercive mandatory PRISM LGBTQ identity cultural competency training directly conflicts with and seeks to actively undermine the deeply held religious beliefs of millions of California families, students, and public-school teachers.”

What the Law Demands — and Why It Is Unconstitutional

Under AB 5, public school teachers in grades 7-12 must complete the PRISM Training, or a closely aligned alternative, which instructs participants to affirm concepts like gender fluidity and to use students’ self-selected pronouns, even when doing so violates their conscience. The program also directs teachers to withhold information from parents about a child’s gender identity if the child has not given permission, falsely claiming that minors have a “right to privacy” from their own parents.

The training explicitly labels traditional Christian beliefs as harmful “heteronormativity,” “homophobic,” and “transphobic,” and equates adherence to biblical truth with discrimination. In essence, teachers are told they must deny their faith or face discipline.

A recent federal court ruling in Mirabelli v. Olson reaffirmed that public school districts cannot compel teachers to lie to parents or affirm gender ideology in violation of their faith. The court condemned such policies as a “trifecta of harm” to teachers, students, and parents. That decision opened the door for teachers statewide to challenge similar unconstitutional policies.

One Teacher’s Example of Courage

One Southern California teacher, represented by Broyles, has formally requested a religious accommodation from his district. In Broyles’s letter to school officials, he explains that the teacher’s faith requires him to speak truthfully, honor parents’ rights, and affirm that God created humanity male and female (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4). Participating in PRISM training would force him to endorse falsehoods about human sexuality and violate his conscience before God.

“The government has no legitimate place marginalizing, shaming, and demonizing the sincere religious beliefs of its good citizens,” Broyles wrote. “State and local LGBTQ+ laws or policies do not supersede well-established federal constitutional rights or a teacher’s right to be free from religious discrimination.”

Broyles also warned that districts cannot retaliate against teachers who request religious accommodation, and that his office will be monitoring any cases of harassment or discrimination.

Per a post on X by Mike Netter (@nettermike):

When Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 5 into law, few Californians realized just how coercive its requirements would become for faithful Christian teachers. As of this school year, every certificated public school employee working with students in grades 7–12 must complete an hour-long “LGBTQ Cultural Competency” course annually. But make no mistake, this state-mandated training is no mere professional development. It is an ideological loyalty test demanding that educators affirm beliefs about gender and sexuality that directly contradict biblical truth.

Yet there is good news: Christian teachers do not have to surrender their faith to keep their jobs.Under both the First Amendment and federal and state civil rights laws, they have the right to request a religious exemption from trainings that violate their sincerely held beliefs.

That’s why the National Center for Law and Policy, led by constitutional attorney Dean Broyles, is stepping forward to defend teachers of faith who refuse to compromise their convictions. “Teachers’ civil rights do not evaporate when they enter our public schools,” Broyles said. “California’s coercive mandatory PRISM LGBTQ identity cultural competency training directly conflicts with and seeks to actively undermine the deeply held religious beliefs of millions of California families, students, and public-school teachers.”

What the Law Demands—and Why It’s Unconstitutional
Under AB 5, public school teachers in grades 7-12 must complete the PRISM Training, or a closely aligned alternative, which instructs participants to affirm concepts like gender fluidity and to use students’ self-selected pronouns, even when doing so violates their conscience. The program also directs teachers to withhold information from parentsabout a child’s gender identity if the child has not given permission, falsely claiming that minors have a “right to privacy” from their own parents.

The training explicitly labels traditional Christian beliefs as harmful “heteronormativity,” homophobic,” and “transphobic,” and equates adherence to biblical truth with discrimination. In essence, teachers are told they must deny their faith or face discipline.

 the Constitution says otherwise. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employers must provide reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. Furthermore, the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and prohibits the government from compelling speech or belief.

A recent federal court ruling in Mirabelli v. Olsonreaffirmed that public school districts cannot compel teachers to lie to parents or affirm gender ideology in violation of their faith. The court condemned such policies as a “trifecta of harm” to teachers, students, and parents. That decision opened the door for teachers statewide to challenge similar unconstitutional policies.

A Call for Courage

Many Christian teachers are afraid. They worry that refusing the training might cost them their jobs or reputations. Others are tempted to simply “click through” the training and answer as the state demands, just to keep the peace. But as followers of Christ, we are called to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) and to stand firm in truth even when pressured to conform.

CFC’s Call to Action

California Family Council Vice President Greg Burt is urging both teachers and school board members to take a public stand for truth.

“Christian teachers should not quietly comply with a state mandate that calls evil good and good evil,” said Greg Burt, Vice President of California Family Council. “By standing up for their own rights, teachers are also defending the civil rights of parents and students, protecting every family’s freedom to live and speak according to biblical truth. We need courageous believers in every classroom and on every school board willing to draw a line and say, ‘We will not bow.’ Our children need to see adults who are unashamed to stand for God’s truth about life, family, and gender, no matter the cost.”

Take Action

If you are a Christian teacher being forced to take this training, you have legal options. Contact the National Center for Law and Policy for assistance in drafting a religious accommodation request. You can also reach out to California Family Council for resources and support.

Now is not the time for silent compliance. The next generation of students is watching. When faithful teachers stand firm, they bear witness to the truth that God, not the government, defines human identity, morality, and truth.

Just as Daniel, Esther, and the three Hebrew men stood unashamed before kings and rulers, California’s Christian teachers must now stand before their school boards and declare:

“We will not bow.”

Information for Parents Defending Education

your district leadership about how social workers engage with minor-age students and the district’s policy on parental notification.

records that provide valuable information about events, classes, and other issues that may cause you concern. Our resource explains how you can file a FOIA request for any of this information. Learn how to file a FOIA request.

DEI Continues To Raise Its Ugly Head

FIRST ON FOX: A conservative legal group has filed a formal complaint calling for a probe into one of the nation’s most prominent research schools, alleging it is continuing illegal race and sex-based discrimination through its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.

In the 165-page complaint sent to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and obtained by Fox News Digital, America First Legal argues that Washington University in St. Louis has systematically embedded DEI ideology across admissions, hiring, curriculum, contracting and student services while at the same time receiving a significant amount of federal funding. 

The complaint alleges that WashU violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through race-conscious admissions practices and diversity statements, race-based student services and pipeline programs, supplier diversity programs steering contracts based on race, and federally funded grants prioritizing "underrepresented" racial groups.

The complaint outlines how the school operated a Bias Report and Support System that encourages anonymous reports for perceived "bias," including protected speech, which America First Legal claims chills expression and enforces ideological conformity.

DEI is so prominent at WashU, according to the complaint, that it conditioned grading and professional advancement at its Olin Business School on compliance with DEI frameworks, allegedly segregating students by race, sex, and identity in coursework and penalizing dissent through grading and evaluations.

The complaint flags federally funded research and training programs at the university that America First Legals says explicitly aim to increase participation from "underrepresented" racial and ethnic groups, arguing that such goals amount to unlawful preferences. It further claims the university operates race-based student services, supplier diversity initiatives and pipeline programs designed to shape admissions outcomes indirectly.

"This position defies common sense. Institutions that are complying with the law do not spend months delaying action and convening lawyers to figure out how to proceed," Megan Redshaw, an attorney at America First Legal, said in a press release.

"Washington University did not misunderstand the law. It chose to ignore it and preserve unlawful DEI practices through rebranding, bureaucratic maneuvering, and euphemisms. That is not compliance. It is concealment."

Last year, Fox News Digital first reported that the Washington University School of Medicine, according to America First Legal, moved their DEI office to a restricted floor rather than shut it down in line with the Trump administration’s efforts.

Individual Speech vs Government Speech

Sentiments of dissenting 9th Circuit judges appointed by Trump set stage for possible Supreme Court appeal.

The federal government's refusal to register a supposedly offensive trademark for the Asian-American rock band The Slants prompted the Supreme Court to issue a sweeping precedent that protected First Amendment rights from the government-speech doctrine.

Now eight years later, that ruling is center stage again as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended the doctrine that steamrolls individual speech under the banner of government speech to validate California medical training. And some dissenting judges nominated by President Donald Trump on that court are raising deep concerns.

A majority of the full appeals court, whose jurisdiction stretches from the Pacific to the Rockies, refused to rehear a challenge to California's imposition of "implicit bias" training in continuing medical education, which doctors must receive to keep their licenses, leaving intact a three-judge panel's ruling that deemed the private courses to be government speech.

The 9th Circuit has become less liberal with Trump's 11 nominees but Democrat nominees still dominate the largest federal appeals court, which has 29 active judges. The rehearing denial doesn't specify the vote count.

"A proper analysis—as prescribed by the Supreme Court, our own court’s prior cases, and our sister circuits—reveals that California’s prior CME regulations did not meaningfully express or shape messages through CME courses" before the Golden State made implicit-bias training a statutory requirement in 2019, the first dissent from refusal to rehear said.

Physicians in CME courses would also be "unlikely to perceive the instructor’s message as the government’s" and the Medical Board of California's "regulations otherwise exert very little control over CME instructors’ messages," Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote.

Tung also wrote a dissent, joined by VanDyke and Bumatay, that scolded the panel for rebranding private instructors as government agents and sidestepping the scientific debate over the validity of implicit bias, which the California law asserts with no evidence is responsible for healthcare "outcome disparities" by race and sex.

California could have hired its own employees or enlisted volunteers to "spread its message of 'implicit bias' and the deleterious effects of this purported phenomenon," or created "a program in which it was involved 'from beginning to end' in proposing edits or suggestions to solicited course material," to qualify for the government-speech doctrine, Tung wrote.

Perhaps in the interest of efficiency, the state has instead chosen to "commandeer a vast majority of course providers … to proselytize its message," he wrote. This creates "the perception of uniformity on a divisive topic" and imposes "a steep social cost on those in the field who dare to dissent."

The Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents ophthalmologist and CME instructor Azadeh Khatibi and medical advocacy group Do No Harm, told Just the News it was likely to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its challenge. (Co-plaintiff and CME instructor Mary Singleton, an early black female physician, died before oral argument.)

Judges VanDyke and Tung thoroughly explained how "classifying speech given by doctors in their personal capacity, on their own time, with no involvement by any government agency or official as 'government speech,' turns the entire legal framework upside down," PLF senior attorney Caleb Trotter wrote in an email.

While California's law could first reach SCOTUS, it's not PLF's only challenge to implicit-bias mandates in professional regulation that could intrigue the high court.

The libertarian public interest law firm is also representing a Michigan dentist who challenged regulations mandated by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's executive order on healthcare equity, rather than a statute like California's, which were allegedly enforced through more than 100 investigations that cost some physicians their licenses and fined others. 

PLF told Just the News it's awaiting a state court's decision on the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs' motion to dismiss, which has been "fully briefed since July."

SCOTUS passed on another challenge to an application of the government-speech doctrine in November, refusing to review an 11th Circuit ruling that upheld a ban on prayer over the public address system by religious teams at games in taxpayer-funded venues.

'What topic would be excluded' under California's content standards?

California's involvement in CME course content is minimal outside the implicit-bias mandate, outsourcing accreditation to private entities but randomly auditing courses and investigating complaints by seeking information such as course rationale and content, educational objectives and "attendance records," according to VanDyke's dissent.

Only for implicit bias does the state require a specific ideological message, that CME instructors provide examples of how implicit bias "affects perceptions and treatment decisions" or detail "strategies to address how unintended biases in decisionmaking may contribute to health care disparities."

VanDyke mocked the panel's "one-factor-to-rule-them-all test" to decide the courses are government speech, based on the government "heavily" or "actively" regulating CMEs. 

While 9th Circuit precedent on government speech is "fairly sparse," its cases "suggest that if a given regulation does not meaningfully control the message being communicated, mere regulation—even extensive regulation—carries little weight, if any, in proving that the government is actually speaking for itself," he wrote.

The 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th Circuits "likewise focus on whether the government is articulating its own message both overall and for each Shurtleff factor," VanDyke said, referring to the 2022 SCOTUS precedent for determining government speech based on the history of expression, public perception and government role in the message.

The panel's "analysis of each factor was improperly skewed by its heavy reliance on the existence of numerous regulations that have little to no connection to shaping the messages conveyed in CME courses," VanDyke's dissent said.

California's content standards, for example, specify that qualified CMEs "may include, but are not limited to," any of four criteria that VanDyke deems an "incredibly expansive, nonbinding, and nonexhaustive list" that gives instructors "free rein to pick their topics and decide what to say about them."

He puzzled over "what topic would be excluded under this provision," which "does not even prevent CME instructors from expressing messages that conflict with other courses, or indeed even presenting conflicting viewpoints within the same course."

While the state has "requirements that certain licensees take CME courses covering specific subject matter" or "capping how much credit can be earned from courses covering specific subject matter," these regulate the attendees, not CME instructors, the judge said. "Nowhere does California force private parties to create CME courses on those specific topics."

Referring to The Slants case, VanDyke wrote the justices ruled out trademarks as government speech, "despite being significantly regulated," because they "have not traditionally been used to convey a Government message." As the high court said, "simply affixing a government seal of approval" doesn't transform private speech into government speech, he argued.

'Any professional accreditation regime' at risk of becoming state's mouthpiece

Tung's dissent emphasizes the historic controversy over both the validity of implicit bias as a real medical phenomenon and its relevance to any given CME course.

The theory "is rooted in neither evidence nor fact, disregards other potential factors that could better explain outcome disparities, and hastily (and inaccurately) identifies racism or sexism as the primary cause," Tung wrote, summarizing the plaintiffs' arguments. They also object to implicit bias for "needlessly setting one racial (or other) group against another."

California simply asserts, as legislative "findings," that implicit bias "often" contributes to unequal treatment based on several traits, especially for African Americans, most specifically that it's responsible for black women being "three to four times more likely than white women to die from pregnancy-related causes nationwide."

Tung reiterated that "no one disputes" the plaintiffs are private, receive no government funding and "remain private speakers" under the law itself, or that the government doesn't own the course materials used by CME instructors.

If extensive regulation were the sine qua non of government speech, "doctors could be forced to affirm viewpoints they find odious as a condition of maintaining their licenses," Tung said. 

"Indeed, any professional accreditation regime, now open to and supported by a vast network of private providers expressing differing (and perhaps conflicting) viewpoints, would be in jeopardy of being converted into an engine of state-sanctioned groupthink if those providers could be compelled to announce a singular position," the judge said.

Support School Board Trustees

Who Protect Children and Promote Liberty

California Chapters of Moms for Liberty Endorse Sonja Shaw 

for California State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Court Ruling: California Overstepped Its Bounds

An opinion piece written by Sonja Shaw which appeared in the New York Post on January 1 2026

Benitez dismantled that scheme, affirming that parents have a fundamental 14th Amendment right to direct the upbringing of their children.

Teachers also have First Amendment rights protecting them from being forced to deceive families.

In plain English, the court said what common sense has been telling us all along: The government does not get to replace parents.

If a student requested different names, pronouns, or access to different gender-specific facilities, parents would be informed.

We believed families should be involved in serious decisions affecting their children’s mental and emotional well-being.

Sacramento disagreed — and Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta and State Superintendent Tony Thurmond sued our district.

Newsom even backed legislation like AB 1955, which bans parental notification outright.

Their argument was simple and dangerous: The state knows best.

Bureaucrats and special interests in Sacramento claimed they could step into the role of parent and shut families out of life-altering decisions.

The court just told them no.

Parents’ rights were violated. Families were deliberately cut out.

The result was harm, not protection.

Hiding information delays help, erodes trust and leaves children isolated when they need support most.

Districts across California that followed our lead faced the same retaliation from Newsom’s political cartel.

Parents and principled teachers stood shoulder to shoulder anyway.

With this ruling, the tide has begun to turn.

Let’s hope further litigation leads to a nationwide ruling, since New York, New Jersey and many other states have similar policies.

For now, Benitez’s decision does more than protect families.

It protects the good teachers who refuse to lie, and restores honesty in our classrooms.

And it sends a clear message to Sacramento that secrecy is not a legitimate education policy.

Parents are done backing down.

For decades, state insiders have pushed ideological agendas in our schools while neglecting the basics.

The results are undeniable: Only 47% of California students can read and write at grade level.

Incoming UC San Diego freshmen are now placed into remedial math courses just to catch up.

That is not progress; it is a cry for help.

The obsession with ideology over education has shortchanged an entire generation of students.

Kids are being used as pawns while parents are treated as obstacles instead of partners.

My fight for parents’ rights led me to run for superintendent of public instruction, a statewide office.

In that role, I will continue to restore transparency statewide.

Real reform requires parents, teachers and school leaders working together to protect children and ensure education focuses on reading, math and real learning.

Not secrets. Not ideology. Not division.

Parents must stay engaged. Show up. Vote.

Run for your local school board and challenge those who put special interests ahead of children.

Our kids deserve schools that educate, not indoctrinate, and policies that respect families, not silence them.

We stand in truth. We link arms.

We fight the good fight. We will not back down.

Together, we can take back California’s schools.

Sonja Shaw is president of the Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education and a 2026 candidate for California’s state superintendent of public instruction.

California Returns to ACA-7

On Thursday, January 22, the California Assembly Appropriations Committee will have a public hearing and has on its agenda ACA 7, the constitutional amendment seeking to repeal education-related provisions of Prop. 209. Previously, in May 2025, the bill was paused and turned into a two-year bill at the same committee. While oftentimes the two-year postponing designation means the end of a bill’s life cycle, the committee has the authority to pull the bill out of its suspense file and vote on it. Since ACA 7 is put on the agenda, we must assume and get ready to fend off another attack on California’s constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.
 
Fghting against similar pieces of bad legislation year after year seems like a game of whack-a-mole. But it is not just cliché to argue for eternal vigilance as the price of liberty. Thanks to a whistleblower who alerted CFER to the ACA 7 hearing, we are able to jump on the situation right away. Last year, we worked hard to raise awareness, register official opposition  and build alliance against ACA 7.  We plan to do the same this year! You can join us and amplify our resolute voice against government discrimination, which would be legalized by ACA 7 by:

1. Contact your state representatives and voice concerns regarding ACA 7. 
2. Email the Assembly Appropriations Committee at approps.committee@assembly.ca.gov and/or contact individual committee members with your strong opposition. 
3. Submit a written comment against ACA 7 through the California Legislature letter portal. 

Moms for Liberty Santa Clara Works with 917 Society

Getting Constitutions into the hands of every 8^th grader

Never Forget: Your Vote Is Vitally Important

America Celebrates Its 250^th Birthday

1776-2026

Moms for Liberty: Helping to foster a renewed culture of service and patriotism...

Pornographic Books In School Libraries

The campaign to purge pornographic books from public school libraries is gaining serious momentum. Take Back the Classroom has widened its reach — new states, new districts, and yes, all 50 states are now covered..

TakeBacktheClassroom.com now provides a powerful tool to equip parents and communities with a means to stand up, speak out, and pull explicit material out of school districts once and for all.

What Sets Karen's Effort Apart

Nationwide Library Database:

We maintain the only nationwide database that allows parents and community members to look directly into their public school library collections. Users can identify sexually explicit books available on the shelves and review excerpts from each title.

Focused on Results, Not Ratings:

We do not assign ratings to books. While rating systems can offer educational context, they ultimately work against the goal of removing sexually explicit materials. Ratings often suggest that such content simply needs to be labeled or categorized rather than eliminated. This weakens effective action. In short, ratings hinder the cause, our focus is on results. (More information about our decision not to use ratings will be available soon.)

Book Reports in Spanish:

We provide book reports in Spanish to ensure that all families, regardless of language, can access critical information about what is in their children’s schools.

Free Resources to Support Action:

Our website offers a comprehensive library of free materials to equip parents, advocates, and community leaders who are working to protect students from sexually explicit books. Resources include:

• ·      A step-by-step guide for the book removal process

• ·      Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

• ·      A model challenge letter to formally request book removal

• ·      Guidance for addressing objections and opposition

• ·      A model policy for school boards to adopt 

• ·      Personalized staff support for those actively working to remove books

What We Are Up Against

The organizations working to block parents and push and defend having sexually explicit materials in schools are powered by massive donor funding:

• ACLU Foundation — $169.1M (FY2024)
• ACLU (c)(4) — $141.3M (FY2024)
• American Library Association (ALA) — $25.3M (2024)
• PEN America — $21.2M (2023)

That’s over $356 million in donations driving pressure campaigns, legal intimidation, and public messaging designed to make parents back down. Please do not back down!

Ongoing Education and Updates:

A regularly updated blog is maintained featuring the latest developments related to sexually explicit materials in schools. In addition, we offer training webinars to educate, empower, and connect individuals engaged in this important work.

At every level focus remains the same, namely to provide clear, practical tools that lead to meaningful results and protect the hearts and minds of our children.

Leftist Legal Organization Provides Lesson On How To Be Evasive

Here is the guide:

Look at the structure:

“If they ask” → “You can ask back.”

This is not dialogue. It [is] legit evasion training — how to avoid answering whether sex-based sports are fair or safe.

Massive Fraud in California - Even Worse than in Minnesotta

California could be losing a staggering $250 billion in taxpayer cash through rampant fraud, waste and abuse — according to a Republican-backed analysis of whistleblower tips.

Steve Hilton, who is running for governor, and Herb Morgan, who is seeking the state controller job, unveiled findings from their “CALIFRAUDIA” tip-line investigation — a damning review of the Golden State’s bloated welfare system, which they allege has become a piggy bank for scammers and political hacks.

The Republican candidates fired off a formal letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and federal inspectors general demanding the FBI’s Public Corruption and Complex Fraud units swoop in to investigate.

They’re also demanding independent audits of Medi-Cal, CalFresh, CalWORKs and housing programs — and want real-time public tracking of every state payment.

The California state auditor’s recent High Risk Report already flagged systemic problems across CalFresh, unemployment insurance, Medi-Cal eligibility and financial reporting.

Hilton and Morgan also allege widespread pay abuse within the state’s K–12 education system, and noted the known problem of fake community college applications designed to grift student aid funds. Prior reports from the California state auditor have described a lack of accountability in homelessness and social welfare funding that raises the risk of fraud and waste.

But the poster child for California’s catastrophic incompetence? The unemployment insurance disaster during COVID, when the state admitted losing more than $55 billion to fraudsters — including international crime syndicates.

California watchdogs raised the alarm about waste and bloat in the state’s budget after bombshell revelations in Minnesota found rampant theft of COVID-era social services funds.

The widespread scam involved members of the Somali community creating fake nonprofits and billing the state for services that were never provided.

A Cautionary Tale from Detransitioner Chloe Cole

Off The Press  @OffThePress1            

New Jersey, New York, California, and Colorado among top states Americans left in 2025.

Where people are moving to.

Immigrant truck drivers in limbo as feds deny California effort to reissue licenses

Thousands of immigrant drivers whose commercial driver’s licenses are set to expire next month were left bewildered and disappointed when news spread that California was planning on reissuing the licenses — only to learn federal regulators had not authorized doing so.

Amarjit Singh, a trucker and owner of a trucking company in the Bay Area, said he and other drivers were hopeful when word of California’s intentions reached them.

“We were happy [the California Department of Motor Vehicles] was going to reissue them,” he said. “But now, things aren’t so clear and it feels like we’re in the dark.”

Singh said he doesn’t know whether he should renew his insurance and permits that allow him to operate in different states.

“I don’t know if I’m going to have to look for another job,” he said. “I’m stuck.”

Singh is one of 17,000 drivers who were given 60-day cancellation notices on Nov. 6 following a federal audit of California’s non-domiciled commercial driver’s license program, which became a political flashpoint after an undocumented truck driver was accused of making an illegal U-turn and caused a crash in Florida that killed three people.

The nationwide program allows immigrants authorized to work in the country to obtain commercial driver’s licenses. But officials said the federal audit found that the California Department of Motor Vehicles had issued thousands of licenses with expiration dates that extended beyond the work permits, prompting federal officials to halt the program until the state was in compliance.

This week, the San Francisco Chronicle obtained a letter dated Dec. 10 from DMV Director Steve Gordon to the U.S Department of Transportation stating that the state agency had met federal guidelines and would begin reissuing the licenses.

In a statement to The Times, DMV officials confirmed that they had notified regulators and were planning to issue the licenses on Wednesday, but federal authorities told them Tuesday that they could not proceed.

DMV officials said they met with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which oversees issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses, to seek clarification about what issues remain unresolved.

A spokesperson for the Department of Transportation, which oversees the FMCSA, would only say that it was continuing to work with the state to ensure compliance.

The DMV is hopeful the federal government will allow California to move ahead, said agency spokesperson Eva Spiegel.

“Commercial drivers are an important part of our economy — our supply chains don’t move and our communities don’t stay connected without them,” Spiegel said. “DMV stands ready to resume issuing commercial driver’s licenses, including corrected licenses to eligible drivers. Given we are in compliance with federal regulations and state law, this delay by the federal government not only hurts our trucking industry, but it also leaves eligible drivers in the cold without any resolution during this holiday season.”

Bhupinder Kaur — director of operations at UNITED SIKHS, a national human and civil rights organization — said the looming cancellations will disproportionately impact Sikh, Punjabi, Latino and other immigrant drivers who are essential to California’s freight economy.

“I’ve spoken to truckers who have delayed weddings. I’ve spoken to truckers who have closed their trucking companies. I’ve spoken to truckers who are in this weird limbo of not knowing how to support their families,” Kaur said. “I myself come from a trucker family. We’re all facing the effects of this.”

Despite hitting a speed bump this week, Kaur said the Sikh trucking community remains hopeful.

“The Sikh sentiment is always to remain optimistic,” she said. “We’re not going to accept it — we’re just gonna continue to fight.”

California sets up a showdown with Washington by reissuing licenses to migrant truckers

• California extended the deadline for 17,000 migrant truck drivers to reapply for commercial licenses, giving them until March 6 instead of Jan. 5.
• U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut $160 million in funding over the licensing delay, escalating the state-federal conflict.
• The dispute disproportionately affects Punjabi Sikh truckers, a vital part of California’s Central Valley economy and the broader American trucking industry.

California has delayed its cancellation of thousands of commercial driver’s licenses held by migrants, setting it up for another showdown with Washington.

The Department of Motor Vehicles announced on Tuesday that the 17,000 migrant truck drivers whose licenses had been revoked can now keep them for 60 more days, which could enable the drivers to retake tests and do whatever is necessary to remain legal.

“Commercial drivers are an important part of our economy — our supply chains don’t move, and our communities don’t stay connected without them,” said DMV Director Steve Gordon in a statement after the extension.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy reacted by threatening to cut $160 million in federal funding to California if the state doesn’t meet the Jan. 5 deadline to revoke unvetted foreign trucker licenses.

“California does NOT have an ‘extension’ to keep breaking the law and putting Americans at risk on the roads,” Duffy posted on X.

He had earlier withheld $40 million in federal funding to California for failing to enforce English proficiency tests for truckers.

California’s move to delay license revocations comes days after the Sikh Coalition and the Asian Law Caucus filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the DMV failed to offer proper recourse for affected drivers, refused to renew or issue new commercial driver’s licenses, and violated their rights.

The 60-day extension allows those drivers whose licenses were set to expire on Jan. 5 to continue driving until March 6.

“It’s one small positive step forward,” said Manpreet Kaur, the vice mayor of Bakersfield, home to many migrant truckers. “We were extremely relieved to see this within the community here in Bakersfield.”

Why are California’s Indian truck drivers disappearing during the holiday rush?

Bakersfield is a hub for trucking in the Central Valley, with a large concentration of the Punjabi Sikh community that was affected by the decision to revoke licenses. Kaur said truckers have been unfairly targeted in the political tussle between state policy and federal rules.

Punjabi Sikhs are a pillar of the American trucking industry. An estimated 150,000 work in trucking, with the majority based on the West Coast.

Commercial licenses for non-American drivers became a political flash point in 2025 after an undocumented Punjabi trucker was involved in an accident in Florida that resulted in the death of three people.

A federal audit found that many commercial licenses issued to immigrant drivers were set to expire long past the duration of immigrant truckers’ legal stay in the U.S.

Critics have contended that drivers shouldn’t be punished for clerical errors of the DMV.

“I believe all 17,000 truckers will be able to take the [commercial driver’s license] test by March,” said Matt Cartwright, a transportation and personal injury attorney and former U.S. representative from Pennsylvania. “The safe drivers will have no problem passing.”

Immigrant truck drivers in limbo as feds deny California effort to reissue licenses

The extension could be used to do more thorough screening, such as verifying status, confirming qualifications, and documenting the process so the public can trust the outcome and safety is ensured, said Tray Gober of LGR Law Firm.

Trucking trade groups once complained about driver shortages and welcomed immigrant drivers. Now, the associations say the shortages no longer exist because of the freight recession and are supportive of the federal crackdown on foreign drivers. Some have backed the move to remove unqualified drivers who can’t read road signs.

One new issue that might emerge from reapplication is whether, “by submitting to the new rules, immigrants with revoked licenses are giving up any right to sue for improper revocation,” said attorney Doug Burnetti, who has been closely following the policy changes.

“I suspect that may be fact-specific and depend on each case, but if I were representing the federal government, I would argue that reapplication under the new rules waives any objections to the revocation under the old rules,” Brunetti said.

On the other hand, he said, the truckers would argue they had no choice but to reapply to try to get their licenses back.

“That’s an interesting question that will ultimately have to be resolved by a judge,” he said.

A federal court in California on Friday struck down the state's law that prohibits people from openly carrying guns in most public places, ruling that the state law was unconstitutional because it violated the Second Amendment.

The San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cited a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a New York law that required people applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon prove they have "proper cause" to carry a gun.

The California law in question banned openly carrying guns in counties with a population greater than 200,000 people. 

The appeals court's 2-1 decision said the California case "unquestionably involves a historical practice — open carry — that predates ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791," and that "historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition."

Judge N. Randy Smith, a George W. Bush appointee who dissented from the court's majority opinion, wrote that banning openly carrying guns is constitutional because California allows weapons to be carried concealed.

More than 200 women lawmakers filed an amicus brief supporting legal efforts to protect women’s sports ahead of Supreme Court oral arguments next week.

The brief backs laws from West Virginia and Idaho as the justices prepare to hear two cases on athlete eligibility.

Brief Filed

The amicus brief was signed by exactly 207 women lawmakers.

Idaho state representative Barbara Ehardt is listed as the lead amica.

All of the lawmakers who signed the brief are Republicans.

The filing argues in favor of preserving women’s and girls’ sports.

The brief was submitted ahead of Supreme Court oral arguments scheduled for Tuesday.

Lawmakers Listed

The signatories include Maine state Rep. Laurel Libby.

Libby became nationally known after being censored for criticizing a trans athlete last February.

Other signers include Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth.

Iowa state Senate President Amy Sinclair and Missouri state Senator Cindy O’Laughlin also signed.

Additional names include lawmakers from Alaska, Kansas, and North Dakota.

Legal Argument

The brief argues eligibility should be determined by biology.

“Since the existence of separate women’s sports programs is justified by biological differences between women and men, there are exceedingly persuasive reasons to determine eligibility for such programs using biological criteria rather than a person’s sense of gender,” the brief states.

The filing argues current laws are necessary to protect fairness.

It frames the issue as preserving the purpose of women’s sports.

The brief supports state laws keeping biological males out of women’s athletics.

The Supreme Court will now review the disputes.

Competing Briefs

Several amicus briefs have already been filed in the cases.

Some briefs support the states defending women’s sports laws.

Others support trans inclusion in women’s athletics.

Super Bowl-winning coach Barry Switzer signed a brief supporting the states.

Become a Part of the Frontlines...

* The ability to act fearlessly as a joyful warrior, someone who is willing to stand on solid principles and fight for what is right, especially when faced with a hostile environment.

Interested in learning more? Please reach out to our chapter's membership coordinator Kingslee.

Want to See the Change? Be the Change...

Organizations whose efforts we support...

Think on this...

Moms for Liberty Santa Clara County operates as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization.

The organization's primary mission is to organize, educate and empower parents
to defend their parental rights at all levels of government.

Visit us at https://momsforlibertysantaclara.com
Email us at MomsForLibertySCC@gmail.com

Want to read past newsletters? Click Here
Wish to unsubscribe from this newsletter? Click Here

Our physical mailing address: 1050 Kiely Blvd.  # 2453  Santa Clara, CA  95055