Democrats are increasingly outspoken about the poor condition of education in the U.S.

The Democratic Party has long been known as “the education party,” but its reputation has taken a hit of late. At the same time, recent polls show that Republicans are gaining trust on education issues, especially after the COVID school closures sparked battles over parental rights, curriculum, school choice, and ties to the teachers’ unions.

But now, some prominent Democrats have stepped up. Arne Duncan, who served as the U.S. Secretary of Education under President Obama, recently joined Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a national policy advocacy group, as a senior fellow to advise on the party’s education strategy. His work with the group aims to strengthen the party’s stance on education in this year’s gubernatorial races.

Referring to Democrats, Duncan states, “We don’t have goals. We don’t have strategies to achieve them. We don’t have metrics to measure them, and we don’t have public transparency. We’re lost, and we’ve broken trust with parents, and so I feel, again, a moral and educational obligation to try and help more.”

In a recent Washington Post op-ed co-written with DFER CEO, Jorge Elorza, the two contend that students at every grade level are falling behind. “Fourth-graders struggle with basic reading. Eighth-grade science scores have declined. Twelfth-graders are performing at generational lows in both reading and math. The cracks in our education system are forming early and widening across K-12.”

In another Washington Post op-ed, Elorza and Ben Austin, a former Clinton White House staffer who authored California’s landmark parent trigger law, write that Democrats have “remained tethered to institutions, frameworks and assumptions from a political era that is disappearing. If they don’t adapt, they risk becoming the minority party in a political order they had little role in shaping.”

They add, “K-12 education might not be the first issue that comes to mind when diagnosing Democratic drift, but if you want to understand how Democrats went from the party of reform to defenders of the status quo, start with public schools.”

Another high-profile Democrat who has been very vocal about educational change is Rahm Emanuel, who served as the White House chief of staff from 2009 to 2010 under President Obama and as mayor of Chicago from 2011 to 2019. He states, “For decades, when pollsters asked voters which party they trusted more on education, Democrats maintained, on average, a 14-point advantage. More recently, that gap closed, then flipped to favor Republicans. That’s in part because we made the grave error of refusing to reopen schools during the pandemic, even when the evidence suggested it was safe.”

Charles Barone, former director of policy at DFER, takes a healthy swipe at the teachers’ unions, asserting, “Democrats must come to an understanding with teachers’ unions and white progressives that unconditional opposition to innovation, accountability, and public school choice is a political and moral dead end. The unions’ positions are at odds with both an overwhelming body of evidence and public opinion, even among Democrats. You can be pro-teacher and even pro-union and still demand innovation and results. That should be the party’s goal.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, absurdly claims that the scholarship law is a “direct attack on all that parents and families hold dear; it’s a ham-fisted, recycled, and likely illegal scheme to diminish choice and deny classrooms resources to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.”

It’s crucial to recognize that although teacher union leaders oppose school choice, it remains popular among Black and Hispanic communities. A recent poll revealed that 63% of Hispanics and 68% of Blacks—groups most in need of choice—support a private option.

The tax-credit law, which allows states to opt in voluntarily, has been gaining support across the country, even in blue states.

Most recently, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, decided to opt the state into the program. There is some pushback, however, as bill HB 26-1292 has been introduced to bar most of the state’s private schools from participating. It is scheduled for a hearing shortly.

America’s public schools. But by 2022, that figure had dropped to 43% among Democrats and just 14% among Republicans.

Although these numbers are quite troubling, the demand for change from Democratic leaders provides some hope.

Larry Sand is a retired 28-year classroom teacher who served as president of the nonprofit California Teachers Empowerment Network from 2006 to 2025. He now focuses on raising awareness about our failing education system.

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.

^​Families File Suit to Continue Gender Experiments

on Their Children

In an escalation of California’s radical gender ideology agenda clashing with federal efforts to protect children, four families have filed a class-action lawsuit against Rady Children’s Health, demanding the hospital resume and permanently maintain so-called “gender-affirming” care, including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, for transgender-identifying minors.

As previously reported, Rady Children’s Health made the difficult but responsible decision in late January 2026 to halt these experimental procedures for patients under 19. The move came directly in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” which rightly condemns the maiming and sterilizing of impressionable youth under the false banner of “transitioning.” The order threatens to withhold federal funding, including Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements, from institutions that continue these life-altering interventions. This puts not just the targeted children at risk, but the hospital’s ability to serve all its patients.

Rady to keep providing non-surgical interventions like hormone therapy and puberty blockers—at least through mid-March. The judge called it an “extraordinarily thorny issue,” but the real thorn is California’s stubborn refusal to prioritize child safety over ideology.

Now comes the latest chapter in this saga. Earlier this month, four San Diego-area families, representing minors identified only by initials, filed their proposed class-action complaint in San Diego County Superior Court. The suit, brought with the help of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the Western Center on Law & Poverty, and the Impact Fund, alleges that Rady’s decision to scale back these controversial treatments discriminates against transgender children on the basis of sex, gender identity, and disability (gender dysphoria). They claim it violates multiple California laws that define “gender-affirming” interventions as “medically necessary” and bans discrimination based on gender identity.

The families assert the cutoff has already caused harm to roughly 1,900 patients through canceled appointments, interrupted access to medications, and emotional distress. They are seeking a court injunction to prevent Rady from ever ending these services for minors, plus monetary damages. Shannon Minter, legal director for NCLR, framed the lawsuit in typical activist fashion: “We can’t just as a society stand by silently and passively while hospitals… make decisions to exclude an entire group of people just based on who they are. That sets such a dangerous precedent.”

What’s dangerous, of course, is continuing to push unproven, irreversible treatments on children whose bodies and brains are still developing. European nations like Sweden, Finland, and the UK have sharply restricted or banned these interventions for minors after independent reviews exposed the weak evidence base and serious risks—including infertility, bone density loss, sexual dysfunction, and lifelong medical dependence. Even here in America, growing numbers of detransitioners are coming forward with heartbreaking stories of regret after being rushed down this path.

the other, a president, a growing body of science, and millions of concerned Californians who recognize that “affirming” a child’s confusion with drugs and hormones is not “healthcare” but rather harm.

The Rady saga is far from over, with Bonta’s suit still pending and this fresh class action just getting started. One can only hope that cooler heads, ones focused on actual child protection, prevail before more young lives are irreversibly altered in the name of progressive dogma. California’s children deserve better than to be pawns in this dangerous experiment.

^​Supreme Court Rules 8-1 in Massive Free Speech Case

An article by Fred Lucas posted on The Daily Signal on March 31 2026

The Supreme Court held in an 8-1 ruling on Tuesday that a Colorado ban on “conversion therapy” for counselors unlawfully regulates speech and is viewpoint discrimination. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a President Donald Trump appointee, issued the majority opinion. Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor—both appointees of President Barack Obama—issued concurring opinions. 

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—an appointee of President Joe Biden—dissented. 

goes further to prescribe what views she may and may not express, discriminating on the basis of viewpoint,” Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

“The law permits her to express acceptance and support for clients exploring their identity or undergoing gender transition, but forbids her from saying anything that attempts to change a client’s ‘sexual orientation or gender identity,’ including efforts to change ‘behaviors,’ ‘gender expressions,’ or ‘romantic attraction[s],’” he added.

The opinion stated that the government cannot label speech as conduct, as in Chiles’ case it constituted treatment. The opinion added that the “First Amendment is no word game.”

“The fact that the state’s viewpoint regulation falls only on licensed health care professionals does not change the equation,” Gorsuch wrote. 

Colorado effectively argued for a “First Amendment Free Zone” to censor speech it opposed, argued Dan Mauler, general counsel at The Heritage Foundation. He called this a "breathtakingly dangerous notion.”

An article by Fred Lucas posted on The Daily Signal on April 8 2026

Even after a decisive Supreme Court ruling on free speech in gender counseling, more such cases could be on the way as state and local governments across the country have bans of some sort on reparative therapy.

The Supreme Court recently ruled 8-1 against Colorado’s law that required counseling to conform to gender ideology. Some counselors use reparative therapy to help clients navigate unwanted same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria, rather than affirm their inclinations, but Colorado’s law prohibited this method.

Two dozen states and dozens more local governments have restrictions on this type of counseling. It’s not clear whether they will now comply with the court’s ruling, said David Pickup, a psychologist who was the first plaintiff to challenge a ban on reparative therapy in California.

“It was definitely shocking in a positive way to see an 8-1 ruling in the Supreme Court, which shows justices across the ideological spectrum see the fallacy of blocking speech,” Pickup told The Daily Signal.

Pickup’s challenge to the California law was struck down in 2013 by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court did not take the case at the time.

a liberal think tank. Another four states have similar executive orders or administrative restrictions.

A Supreme Court ruling is not self-executing, though states have historically complied with rulings.

In this instance, some states appear poised to look for a legal workaround. For its part, Colorado’s Democrat House of Representatives passed a measure to allow gay or transgender clients to sue therapists who practice reparative or conversion therapy.

State lawmakers in California are reportedly considering reclassifying “conversion therapy” as a fraudulent commercial service that could invite malpractice litigation, as a workaround to the First Amendment.

Michigan Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in a public statement last week, “Michigan will never support any practice that harms or shames LGBTQ+ youth. As long as I’m governor, every young person deserves the right to grow up safe, supported, and free to be themselves.”

Therapy is provided to patients who request it, Pickup said. He noted documented cases of parents or churches attempting to require therapy, but said a professional psychologist would not engage in compulsory therapy with a patient.

The states with legislatively enacted bans before the Supreme Court ruling were California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington state, and Wisconsin, according to the Movement Advancement Project. The four states with administrative orders blocking the therapy are Arizona, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Virginia.

^​Parents Are Back in Charge, and Voters Are With Them

child. Seventy percent support universal education savings accounts. Parents want flexibility, the ability to choose a school, tutoring, curriculum, or specialized services that actually fit their child.

This shift is already happening across the country. But some states are now facing a simple question: Will families benefit, or will they miss out?

Take Kansas. Congress has created a federal education tax credit scholarship that states can choose to opt into. When a state opts in, private donations—supported by federal tax credits—can fund scholarships for students in that state.

Kansas hasn’t opted in yet. That doesn’t stop the program. It means those scholarship dollars are going to students in other states that have opted in, like Colorado. Twenty-six other states are already participating. There’s no good reason Kansas families should be left on the sidelines.

This isn’t about growing government. It doesn’t create a new bureaucracy. It doesn’t force anyone to do anything. Opting in simply allows Kansas students to benefit instead of watching opportunities go elsewhere. It’s about fairness and common sense.

Parents also want schools to get back to basics. Reading. Math. Science. History. Civics. They want schools that prepare kids for adulthood, not classrooms distracted by ideology. As the country approaches its 250th anniversary, teaching young people how our system works and why it matters isn’t optional. It’s mission-critical.

Education reform is also part of a bigger picture. Eighty-three percent of voters support expanding tax credits and child care supports that help families balance work and home. Strong schools depend on strong families, and families need policies that respect their time, values, and responsibilities.

School Choice Week isn’t about slogans. It’s about reality. Parents stepped up when the system failed them. They aren’t giving that responsibility back. The polling shows it. The states are acting on it. And the future of American education will be better because parents are finally being heard.

^​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.

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.”

^​Pixar Wokeness in Full Retreat

Pixar is in full retreat, admitting its recent films flopped after pushing woke “therapy” instead of storytelling, and now they're scrambling to win audiences back. Meanwhile, David Goggins is back — making a decision that’s sending shockwaves through the military world. And a Hollywood action star is caught on camera in a violent street fight that’s blowing up online.

What Happened:

• Pixar leadership admits recent films failed after pushing niche, politically charged storytelling
• Executives say the studio must return to broad, universal stories that appeal to everyone
• Internal backlash erupts as staff complain about cutting trans and LGBT storylines.

What You Need To Know:

• Massive box office bombs forced Pixar to rethink its entire strategy.
• Leadership says audiences rejected films that felt like “therapy” instead of entertainment.
• The studio is now pivoting back to proven formulas that made it successful.  SEE PIXAR’S SHOCK ADMISSION

successful runs of any production studio ever. Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, and Toy Story 3 — if you can’t find anything in there to awaken your inner child or emotionally transport you to infinity and beyond, you may not be human.

Sadly, the magic has long since died out. Nearly all of Pixar’s post-2010 slate have failed to reach the heights of their original offerings, with the notable exception of Incredibles 21 . I wouldn’t go so far as Ted Gioia, who writes the delightful and erudite cultural review The Honest Broker, arguing that Pixar overextended itself into becoming “just another bomb factory.” But the data don’t lie.

from Brave, The Good Dinosaur, and Coco. The Covid-19 pandemic complicates this story somewhat, but an alternate reality in which Soul or Elemental became chart-topping hits seems unlikely.

Over this same period, Disney has been in the crosshairs from conservative voices — most notably, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — for seeking to advance specific cultural messages, particularly around LGBT+ issues. The right hasn’t been imagining decreasingly-oblique references to same-sex attraction in Pixar releases: Onward had a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it lesbian police officer from another planet. Lightyear, a prequel (of sorts) to the Toy Story series, included a same-sex kiss. The 2020 short “Out” told the story of a gay man’s anxiety about coming out to his parents. Luca was the subject of accusations of “queerbaiting” from LGBT writers, with its protagonist’s coming-of-age journey seemingly influenced by stories of same-sex discovery (Call Me By Your Name may as well have filed a copyright claim.) Riley, the protagonist of Inside Out 2, has a will-they-or-won’t-they subplot that hints at a same-sex crush before an end-credit reveal that her “dark secret” was actually some light childhood vandalism.

These references were no accident; there was a concerted push from creatives within the company to use their cultural platform to push progressive inclusivity and social change.2 Most notably, in a 2022 video obtained by the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher F. Rufo, Disney television executive Latoya Raveneau told her coworkers about the company’s quiet support of her “not-at-all secret gay agenda…I was just, wherever I could, adding queerness...no one would stop me, and no one was trying to stop me.” She wasn’t alone. Disney+, the company’s streaming service, posted in March 2022 that the service stood by the LGBTQIA+ community, and hoped to “reflect the world in which we live, and...be a source for inclusive, empowering, and authentic stories.”

But as the company was increasingly open about its embrace of progressive values in its entertainment products, a broader cultural backlash (discussed in last week’s Family Matters) was gaining steam. Some on the right wanted to draw a direct link between Disney/Pixar’s embrace of LGBT tokenism and its struggles at the box office — “go woke, go broke,” as the phrase had it.

And while the political valence wasn’t the whole story, it certainly played some role. IGN’s Alex Stedman reported that the company “internally put a large part of the blame for Lightyear’s financial failure on a same-sex kiss in the film,” leading to some of the suggestions of lesbian romance in Inside Out 2 to be toned down (to animators’ chagrin.) Shortly thereafter, a Pixar-produced TV series for Disney+ changed a central storyline so that a central character was no longer portrayed as transgender.3 At the time, a Disney spokesman said that the company realized that “many parents would prefer to discuss certain subjects with their children on their own terms and timeline” — the mildest possible euphemism for an acknowledgment that the studio had misread the politics around transgender identity.

Now, Elio, the studio’s latest release, is the latest to pit animators’ preference for socially-conscious entertainment against studio execs’ desire to appeal to as wide a commercial audience as possible.

As a recent piece by Ryan Gajewski in the Hollywood Reporter recounts:

“Elio was initially portrayed as a queer-coded character, reflecting original director Adrian Molina’s identity as an openly gay filmmaker…Although viewers expressed how much they enjoyed the movie, they were also asked how many of them would see it in a theater, and not a single hand was raised, according to a source with knowledge of the event. This sounded alarm bells for studio brass…

“The changes to Elio were clear to one former Pixar artist who worked on the film and asked to remain anonymous: ‘It was pretty clear through the production of the first version of the film that [studio leaders] were constantly sanding down these moments in the film that alluded to Elio’s sexuality of being queer.’” (emphasis mine)

Elio has been a box office bomb, racking up Pixar’s worst launch in the studio’s history ($21 million domestic opening on a reported $150 million budget…yikes). Basing the main character around a controversial identity that then had to be rolled back left the company with a “schmaltzy yet sincere” and “sweetly conventional” film that is, by many reports, empty of meaningful narrative tension (no, I have not yet seen it.) Who knows, maybe an openly gay character would have made for an edgier, more compelling film aimed at a smaller audience — it would have certainly led to a more controversial one. But remember, the original cut led to a film that not a single member of test audiences was interested in seeing in theaters. Pixar had lost the plot long before any notes were passed down from the suits.

Image and trailer © Walt Disney Company

As the former and current CEO of Disney, Bob Iger, said last year: “The bottom line is that infusing messaging as sort of a number one priority in our films and TV shows is not what we’re up to. They need to be entertaining.” Some of this might be self-serving — The Bulwark’s Sonny Bunch wrote, the “go woke, go broke” idea might be less an ironclad truism (after all, Inside Out 2 made a boatload) but an easy exit ramp for executives who noticed the company was getting too far over its skies, and needed to recenter its strategy of mass appeal:

“If the reaction against Disney were really that visceral we’d have seen some impact on Disney+’s subscription numbers, and in North America, they’ve held pretty steady…Meanwhile, Disney’s “Experiences” division—that is, parks, cruises, etc.—saw revenues increase 13 percent in the most recent quarter. This isn’t a Bud Light situation…But it does give Iger and company an out, a dodge. Admitting that pushing animated movies directly to streaming and flooding the zone, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?-style, with mediocre Marvel and Star Wars shows for Disney+ were mistakes that tanked theatrical revenues would involve folks in the C-suite taking responsibility for badly messing up the whole brand’s content strategy.”

Likewise, the highly specific personal narratives that become Elemental or Turning Red might be creatively rewarding to produce, but don’t resonate commercially. And an animation studio whose products are designed to appeal to children had to learn the hard way that critical and commercial support from relatively small segments of the population don’t counterbalance the backlash from a broad array of parents looking for uncomplicated family-friendly entertainment they can enjoy with a seven-year-old. Going forward, the question for Pixar is whether the mentality Iger sketches out can re-permeate a company that — like many major corporations during the “Great Awokening” — saw its employee base as increasingly wrapping their professional work up into a broader mandate to advance social change.

But that will require the hard work of developing emotionally rewarding and resonant stories that appeal universally, rather than delving into hyper-specific stories of personal identity (like Turning Red) or frustrating both conservatives and LGBT activists with variously-“coded” characters. Inclusion and identity can make stories more specific; but they can also become a crutch, propelling a project through production in lieu of something with the wide resonance of, say, the original Toy Story or Monsters, Inc. films.

Movies take years to make, which means they tend to be a lagging indicator of where the cultural trends tend to be headed. Wokeness crescendoed up to 2020, which led to the increasingly overt LGBT representation in Pixar films then and in subsequent years. Now, America seems to be finding a new equilibrium around what kind of health care is best for youth suffering from gender dysphoria, how best to recognize the reality of sex differences in sports, and whether parents who want to raise their children according to their values around sex and gender should be approached with a strategy of support or social coercion.

Perhaps the commercial and creative catastrophe that Elio seems to be will solidify this trajectory. A successful Pixar will see a return of stories constructed from the ground-up that rely less on overtly “socially relevant” characters and messages (that said, its upcoming release, Hoppers, reportedly relies on a storyline faced on a girl who becomes a beaver to stop the construction of a real estate development — enough with the heavy-handed NIMBY propaganda!4) At the very least, I’d put even money on next year’s Toy Story 5 (sigh…decadence…) to rake in the box office dollars and to take pains to avoid anything that might be cast as “woke.”

^​Parental Anti-Discrimination Statement

Were all your valiant efforts to preserve your child’s understanding of reality, preserve their health, their mental well-being, fertility and sexual function, labeled as discriminatory and hateful?

You’re not alone. Here’s a handy statement you can offer to your accusers:

As parents, we’re committed to promoting a safe environment that fosters critical thinking and acceptance of biological reality. In our homes and families we love and protect our children without needing to sever their body parts, delude them about their sex, shorten their lives, or destroy their endocrine systems.

We do not support discrimination against males for being males, nor against females for being females.

We do not support discrimination against the natural experience of puberty.

We reject bigotry against young people who enjoy a variety of interests, hairstyles and clothes, and do not support telling them that these preferences mean they must modify their body parts in order to conform to outdated sex stereotypes.

We do not support hatred or bigotry towards families or vital familial bonds, nor do we support the unjust and cruel practice of luring children away to be raised by “glitter” families or state run organizations rather than their loving parents.

We do not support discrimination against parents via threats of (or actual) separation from their children for trying to protect their mental health and physical well-being.

We do not support self-discrimination, in which a person discriminates against their own sexed self through flattening breasts, compressing the penis and testicles, eroding bones and interfering with brain and body development through the use of Lupron, destroying endocrine and other essential systems through wrong-sex hormones, or via seeking elective surgeries that destroy health and function in an attempt to be mistaken for the opposite sex.

We do not support hatred and bigotry towards any body parts, nor the severing of those healthy body parts as an expression of that hatred.

We do not support bigotry and hatred towards natural sexual development, sexual pleasure, fertility, or the ability to breastfeed.

We do not support hatred toward gays and lesbians through the prescription of wrong-sex hormones or through surgical alteration of their bodies in order to approximate the appearance of the opposite sex.

We do not support discrimination against mentally ill people via unsubstantiated medical interventions based on that person’s claim that they are actually, inside, a different sex.

We do not support prejudice against victims of indoctrination by denying them adequate, evidenced based care.

We do not support prejudice against those who are 18, or 19, or 24, or 32, or any age, by saying that while children deserve evidence-based medicine and intact, healthy bodies, adults do not.

We believe in equality of care across age groups.

We do not support discrimination against reality or biology.

We do not support discrimination against detransitioners or desisters who seek redress for the ways they were misled or maimed, or for the way their mental health needs were ignored in favor of chopping off their body parts.

We do not support discrimination via the erasure, silencing, suppression or de-platforming of detransitioners.

We do not support discrimination against TERFS or others who object to the trampling of women’s rights and the erasure of women as a distinct sex class.

We do not support discrimination against female athletes in which they are placed at a disadvantage, lose honors and opportunities, and must absorb severe safety risks caused by male competitors in their sports.

We do not support discrimination against journalists, teachers, doctors, lawmakers of either party, or therapists who have the backbone to speak out against unevidenced social, medical and mental harms against vulnerable people.

We do not support prejudice against women who wish to have privacy from men in their dressing rooms, locker rooms, and bathrooms.

We do not support the denunciation or vilification of those who speak out honestly, plainly and bluntly regarding these injustices, nor do we support discriminatory admonishments to "be kind.

We do not believe in discrimination against any of those brave enough to speak out on behalf of biological reality and women' s rights. No form of discrimination against this group- not firing them from jobs, ruining their careers, writing hit pieces on them, threatening their families, doxxing them, sending them hate mail, trying to turn their friends and families against them, casting them out of their communities, or sending them death or rape threats- is acceptable.

We do not support bigotry towards people who use the scientific method to uncover truths others find inconvenient.

We do not support discrimination against those who engage in free speech.

We do not support any form of prejudice against the messy, beautiful, and ever-evolving complexities of life, nor do we support the hijacking and limiting of the dreams, possibilities, and wonderfully intricate futures of our loved ones. We embrace and support the lifelong work of developing one’s character, honor, curiosity, resilience and integrity; we celebrate and encourage efforts to find meaning through real world connection and worthwhile, tangible pursuits that nourish the soul, body, heart and mind.

We reject all ideologies that reduce the richness of human life to a prison of perpetual identity rumination.

Together, we can create a supportive and inclusive community for all.

Over the past decade, we have witnessed a profound cultural shift in how family relationships are viewed, especially between parents and adult children. Words like “toxic,” “boundaries,” and “protecting my peace” have become part of everyday language. While some of these concepts can be healthy when used correctly, they have also contributed to a growing trend of family estrangement.

In many cases, relationships that once would have gone through conflict, forgiveness, and repair are now being permanently cut off. This shift is not happening by accident. It is the result of several powerful forces shaping how people think, feel, and interpret their past.

Here are five major factors driving this cultural change, what is causing it, and what it may lead to in the future.

• The Misuse of Therapy Language

Psychological terms that were once used carefully in therapy have become simplified slogans on social media. Words like “toxic,” “narcissist,” and “trauma” are now often applied to normal human conflicts or imperfect parenting. When these labels are used too loosely, they can encourage people to view ordinary disagreements as reasons to permanently cut off family members. What began as tools meant to help people heal are sometimes now pushing people toward division rather than reconciliation.

• The Rise of Extreme Individualism

• Social Media Reinforcement and Echo Chambers
Algorithms on social media platforms tend to show users more of the content they engage with. If someone begins watching or reading content about difficult family relationships, they may quickly be surrounded by messages that validate cutting off family members as the best or only solution. This creates an echo chamber where one perspective becomes dominant, often without balanced discussion about reconciliation, responsibility, or long-term consequences.

• Pandemic Isolation and Digital Influence
The COVID pandemic accelerated many of these trends. People spent more time online, experienced higher levels of anxiety and isolation, and began re-evaluating their relationships. During this time, many individuals turned to online communities for validation and guidance. For some, this helped them process real pain. For others, it introduced ideas and narratives that reshaped how they viewed their family history, sometimes leading to permanent estrangement.

• The Potential Long-Term Consequences
Researchers are beginning to observe that widespread family estrangement carries deep emotional consequences. Parents often experience profound grief, confusion, and depression. Adult children may initially feel relief but later struggle with unresolved guilt, identity questions, and regret, especially as parents age or pass away. A society where family bonds become increasingly fragile may also weaken the support structures that help individuals navigate hardship.

This cultural shift raises an important question for the future: are we encouraging healing, or are we unintentionally normalizing permanent division within families?

Healthy boundaries, accountability, and personal growth are important. But so are forgiveness, humility and the willingness to repair relationships when possible. Families have always been imperfect, yet they have historically been one of the strongest foundations for resilience, identity, and belonging.

The question that remains is: what will be the outcome of this shift, and which generation will ultimately be the last one left standing?

^​When Activism Displaces Academics in America’s Schools

Danville, Ill., is my hometown. Fewer than one in eight students there can read proficiently. Even fewer can do math at grade level. 

Last month, hundreds of those same students walked out of class to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

That contrast, between academic performance and political mobilization, is not just a local story. It reflects a broader drift in public education across America. 

Danville has produced its share of recognizable names, including Gene Hackman, Donald O’Connor, and Dick and Jerry Van Dyke. For decades, Chuckles candies were made there. Danville Stadium even appeared in “The Babe.” 

Academic achievement, however, has never been the town’s calling card.

Only 11% of students are proficient in reading, according to data reported to the U.S. Department of Education. In math, the number falls to 6%. The graduation rate is 62%, 27 points behind the state average.

These are not partisan talking points. They are statewide standardized test results.

Students at Danville High School spend roughly six hours a day in class. Subtract holidays, teacher in-service days and weather delays, and instructional time becomes even more limited. In a district where literacy and numeracy are lacking, every minute matters.

Yet amid this academic crisis, instructional time gave way to signs and slogans.

Unfortunately, Danville is hardly alone.

Student walkouts and anti-ICE rallies have occurred in at least 13 states. In some instances, protests have become violent and destructive.

In Cincinnati, students who walked out entered a nearby grocery store, causing thousands of dollars in property damage. In Pennsylvania, a high school protest led to clashes with police and multiple arrests.

recovery” from pandemic learning loss.

The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress, dubbed the “nation’s report card,” shows 12^th-grade reading scores at their lowest level since testing began in 1992. Only one-third of seniors are prepared for college-level math, while 32% of seniors scored below “basic” in reading. 

Clearly, students should be focused on mastering fundamentals. 

Back in Danville, District 118 Superintendent John Hart described the protest as respectful and praised students for exercising their constitutional rights.

He is correct that the demonstration was peaceful and that students returned to class immediately afterward. 

But whether the protest was orderly is not the issue. The issue is the proper use of instructional time.

Across the country, teachers have received encouragement from national unions such as the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers to engage in campaigns targeting ICE. 

Meanwhile, educators who have expressed support for ICE on social media have faced investigations and been placed on administrative leave.

That contrast raises a fair question: Would a pro-ICE student rally during school hours receive the same institutional support?

Public schools should not become partisan accelerators for any side. Once administrators signal which side of the aisle is celebrated and which is subject to scrutiny, public education drifts into ideological territory it was never designed to occupy.

This shift is occurring at a moment when civic literacy itself is in decline. 

A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation found that more than 70% of Americans fail a basic civic literacy quiz. Just one-quarter said they were “very confident” in explaining how the legislative branch works.

We are graduating students who struggle with reading, math and a basic understanding of government, and then normalizing political mobilization during school hours.

The protest in Danville was peaceful. The students involved exercised their constitutional rights and were heard, at least for an hour.

The problem is misplaced priorities.

Public schools are taxpayer-funded institutions with a mandate to educate children. In Danville, fewer than one in eight students read proficiently. 

Those conditions call for urgency, not diversion.

Activism has always been a part of the American story. 

So has education. 

But when schools blur the line between the two, students lose something far more important than a class period. 

They lose ground they can’t afford to lose.

^​Is the End of the American Federation of Teachers in Sight?

An article by Madison Marino Doan and Emily White posted to The Daily Signal on April 7 2026

This is bad news for teachers’ unions, who often advocate against that very thing.

Consider the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). With 1.8 million members, the AFT is one of the largest teachers’ unions in the country. It has gained prominence less for advancing classroom outcomes and more for engaging in political activism far removed from instruction. This political activism has been evident recently, as illustrated by AFT president Randi Weingarten speaking at a “No Kings” protest in Minnesota and the organization’s increasing focus on anti-ICE efforts.  

Taken together, these developments reveal a widening gap between teachers’ unions and both the public and the educators they claim to represent. Rather than focusing on classroom instruction and professional support, large unions have increasingly prioritized ideological activism, often at the expense of students, parents, and even their own members.  

Adamantly pushing political agendas—such as LGBTQ+ practices or advocating for biological boys to be able to compete in girls’ sports—in schools across the country doesn’t give students a high-quality education. Instead, it takes time away from students learning how to read or write critically and authentically.  

In addition, using member dues to lobby for left-wing causes or endorse political campaigns doesn’t benefit teachers. Staunchly opposing education choice such as education savings accounts ultimately hinders parents’ freedom to make the right decisions concerning their children’s education.  

Unions also have a track record for keeping kids out of the classroom. Oftentimes, when school strikes are encouraged by the unions, students and families are the ones who pay the price.  

The Defense of Freedom Institute has tracked the impacts of teacher union strikes since 2010 and found that there have been 858,517 employees on strike, 140 strikes in 30 states and the District of Columbia, and 672 days of lost instruction (the equivalent of nearly four school years). For families already struggling with learning loss, these disruptions are not abstract labor disputes; they are lost opportunities that cannot be recovered.  

These are just a few examples of how teachers’ unions have strayed away. This is a problem. The good news is that teachers recognize this, and they’re leaving in large swaths.  

Thankfully, in their stead, alternative options for educators have appeared. A prominent alternative is the Teacher Freedom Alliance, which is free for teachers to join and offers liability insurance for members. This insurance protects educators from risks they may encounter in the industry.  

Since its launch a year ago, over 12,000 educators have joined the Teacher Freedom Alliance. Why? The organization’s mission to “develop free, moral, and upright American citizens” is attracting educators. Its focus on quality curricula and better instruction is free of ideological interference and emphasizes teaching the basics: reading, writing, and arithmetic.  

If teachers continue leaving these unions in large enough waves, teachers’ unions like the AFT may be forced to focus less on promoting political agendas or risk closing up shop. This is good news for students, parents, and the profession itself.  

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

^​Teacher Unions Are Destroying America

Teachers unions are once again threatening to strike...and it could impact your child’s school next. But how much do parents really understand about what’s driving these decisions?

In this classic episode of Parent Alert, host Jill Simonian sits down with teacher and education advocate Rebecca Friedrichs to break down the growing influence of teachers unions, and why so many people are asking: what are these unions really fighting for?

As school districts like LAUSD face potential strikes, this conversation is more relevant than ever.

An important interview with educator Rebecca Friedrichs

^​Signs We Are Winning

Three simple things one can do right now...

The Supreme Court on Monday night granted a request from a group of California parents to reinstate a ruling by a federal district court that prohibits schools in that state from “misleading parents about their children’s gender presentation” and that requires schools to follow parents’ instructions regarding the names and pronouns that children use there. In a seven-page order, the majority explained that the parents were likely to prevail on their claim that California’s policies violate the parents’ right to freely exercise their religion and their right to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

children socially transitioned at school (or who believed that their children socially transitioned at school).

The district court ruled for the challengers, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit put that order on hold while the state appealed. The challengers then came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to intervene. In a mixed ruling on Monday night, the majority handed a victory to the parents but turned down the request from the teachers.

The majority explained that the parents were ultimately likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that the state’s policies interfere with their right to freely exercise their religion. The policies are subject to the most stringent constitutional test, known as strict scrutiny, the majority wrote, because “they substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.’” And they cannot pass that test, the majority continued, despite the state’s contention that the “policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy” because they “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.” Moreover, the majority added, parents have long had “primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children,” including “the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”

In a seven-page dissenting opinion, Kagan criticized the court’s choice to resolve the case on the interim docket, observing that the court had “receive[d] scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute” and then, without holding oral argument, “grant[ed] relief by means of a terse, tonally dismissive ruling designed to conclusively resolve the dispute.”

In a four-page concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett – joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh – pushed back against Kagan’s criticism. Barrett emphasized that the majority’s conclusion that “the parents are likely to succeed on the merits” is a “preliminary” one. And she stressed that the decision to grant interim relief “is not a sign of the Court’s ‘impatience’ to reach the merits,” but rather “reflects the Court’s judgment about the risk of irreparable harm to the parents.” If the 9th Circuit’s order is not lifted, she contended, “parents will be excluded—perhaps for years—from participating in consequential decisions about their child’s mental health and wellbeing.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor indicated that she would have denied not only the teachers’ request, but also the parents’ request.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated that they would have granted the teachers’ request.

^​Arthur Middleton: Replaces Dad in Second Continental Congress

Though Arthur Middleton’s family and estate was left relatively untouched, his collection of rare paintings was destroyed during the British occupation of his home.

^​"Gender-Affirming Care" is Anything But

An opinion piece written by Tyler O'Neil which appeared in The Daily Signal on April 9 2026

Imagine you are confused about your gender, and you think you were “born in the wrong body.” Do you really think a series of experimental drugs and surgeries to erase your biology and make you appear as the opposite sex would improve your psychological condition?

It should come as no surprise that a landmark study from Finland suggests the exact opposite: Fins under 23 who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria proved more likely to receive specialist-level psychiatric treatment, both before and more than two years after the first referral to a gender clinic—and “gender-affirming care” made things far worse.

The study, published Saturday in the journal Acta Paediatrica, finds that young people who were referred for gender identity services were more than three times more likely to receive specialist-level psychiatric treatment than other Fins, both before and after their first appointment.

Working with the Finnish government, Statistics Finland, and a hospital with one of the country’s two gender clinics, the study analyzed eight groups: men and women with gender dysphoria who did not undergo sex-rejecting procedures; men and women with gender dysphoria who did undergo such procedures; and men and women from the general public, matched by birth year and municipality to each patient in the other groups.

The study used the 11-digit personal identification number that each Finnish resident receives to track medical data and psychiatric visits.

The study found that 61.7% of the gender-dysphoric young people received specialist-level psychiatric treatment more than two years after being referred to a gender clinic, while only 14.6% of the control group received such treatment in a comparable time period.

These young people also proved more likely to receive psychiatric treatment before their gender dysphoria diagnosis (45.7% compared to 15.0% of the control group).

The study also finds that young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria after 2010 had greater psychiatric needs than those who were diagnosed before 2010. Only 15.3% of young Fins diagnosed before 2010 had visited a specialist beforehand, and 14.2% had done so two years after their first referral. Meanwhile, 47.9% of those who were diagnosed after 2010 had received specialist-level help beforehand, and 61.3% received it two years afterward.

Psychological problems increased even more during follow-up after “gender-affirming care,” rising from 9.8% to 60.7% among men trying to appear female and from 21.6% to 54.5% among women trying to appear male.

Why This Makes Sense

Contrary to transgender activists’ claims, it stands to reason that the grotesque transgender experiments often dressed up in pretty language as “gender-affirming care” might harm a person’s mental health long-term.

When a doctor diagnoses a minor with “gender dysphoria”—the painful and persistent condition of identifying with the gender opposite one’s sex—the doctor may go on to prescribe “puberty blockers” (drugs that law enforcement uses to chemically castrate sex offenders), cross-sex hormones (which often cause permanent interventions in a person’s body to make them appear as the opposite sex), or surgeries to remove breasts or genitals.

These “treatments” often leave patients stunted, scarred, and infertile. Detransitioners like Joni Skinner have testified that this “care” left them unable to experience sexual satisfaction. A jury recently awarded one detransitioner more than $2 million in a medical malpractice suit.

An opinion piece written by Tyler O'Neil which appeared in The Daily Signal on April 18 2026

A district court judge repeatedly shielded the Southern Poverty Law Center from scrutiny during a defamation case and then dismissed a conservative group’s case because it “lacked evidence,” according to the conservative group’s attorneys.

Attorneys for the estate of Donald A. King and his organization, the Dustin Inman Society, filed an 81-page brief Thursday asking a higher court to reconsider the case. They claimed that Judge Corey L. Maze of the Northern District of Alabama erred in rejecting their attempts to obtain evidence proving the SPLC acted with actual malice in branding the society an “anti-immigrant hate group.”

“The case was decided by stacking four errors,” Harry Mihet, chief litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel and one of DIS’s attorneys, told The Daily Signal in a Friday phone call. “Cutting off discovery, ignoring what the SPLC already knew, twisting the legal standard, and stretching the single-publication rule, until the plaintiffs had no case left. And so the case was decided, not because there is no evidence available, but because the court did not allow any evidence to be gathered, to show that the SPLC acted with actual malice.”

The SPLC has been tracking "hate" and "antigovernment" groups since 2000.

Critics say the SPLC routinely smears mainstream conservative and Christian groups by placing them on a “hate map” with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. King, founder of the Dustin Inman Society, sued the center for defamation after it branded his Georgia-based organization—which opposes illegal immigration—an “anti-immigrant hate group.”

The society also claims Maze erred by finding that the statute of limitations prevented the society from obtaining documents related to the SPLC’s decision to brand the society a “hate group” in 2018 and beforehand.

“The statute of limitations bars stale claims; it does not bar relevant evidence,” the filing states.

“A defendant’s self-serving testimony that it believed in the truth of its statements ‘cannot, by itself, defeat summary judgment,'” the brief states, citing precedent.

Finally, the judge allegedly shielded the SPLC by finding that the Alabama Supreme Court would view the SPLC’s repeated attack on DIS as a single publication, dating only to a time outside the statute of limitations.

The society’s lawyers noted that the Alabama Supreme Court has never ruled in a situation quite like this one, and the single-publication rule arguably does not apply.

“The ‘no evidence’ conclusion did not reflect any weakness in [the society’s] case,” the brief argues. “It reflected the cumulative force of four rulings that made the case nearly impossible to prove.”

In 2012, a terrorist used the “hate map” to target the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian nonprofit in Washington, D.C.

An announcement made by the DoJ posted to NPR on April 21 2026

WASHINGTON — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted Tuesday on federal fraud charges alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to secretly pay leaders of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups for inside information, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said.

The Justice Department alleges the civil rights group defrauded donors by using their money to fund the very extremism it claimed to be fighting, with more than $3 million paid to informants through a now-defunct program to infiltrate white supremacist and other extremist groups. Prosecutors allege some of the money was used by extremists to carry out other crimes, but court papers did not include specific examples.

"The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred," Blanche said.

"Taking on violent hate and extremist groups is among the most dangerous work there is, and we believe it is also among the most important work we do," interim CEO and president Bryan Fair said in a statement. "The actions by the DOJ will not shake our resolve to fight for justice and ensure the promise of the Civil Rights Movement becomes a reality for all."

A program that dated back to the 1980s

The Justice Department alleges the SPLC made false statements to banks in order to set up accounts used to funnel money to informants. The group created bank accounts for fictitious entities such as "Fox Photography" and "Rare Books Warehouse" that were used to send money from donors to informants, in a scheme to conceal the money's actual purpose, the indictment alleges.

Prosecutors say the group never disclosed to donors details of the informant program.

"They're required to under the laws associated with a nonprofit to have certain transparency and honesty in what they're telling donors they're going to spend money on and what their mission statement is and what they're raising money doing," Blanche said.

The indictment includes details on at least nine unnamed informants were paid by the SPLC through a secret program that prosecutors say began in the 1980s. Within the SPLC, they were known as field sources or "the Fs," according to the indictment.

One informant was paid more than $1 million between 2014 and 2023 while affiliated with the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the indictment said. Prosecutors say another informant was a member of the "online leadership chat group" that planned the 2017 white nationalist "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The informant attended the rally at the direction of the SPLC, according to the indictment, and helped coordinate transportation for several others. That person was allegedly paid more than $270,000 between 2015 and 2013.

The SPLC said the program was kept quiet to protect the safety of informants.

"When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the Civil Rights Movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators, and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system," Fair said. "There is no question that what we learned from informants saved lives."

The center has been targeted by Republicans

The SPLC, which is based in Montgomery, Alabama, was founded in 1971 and used civil litigation to fight white supremacist groups. The nonprofit has become a popular target among Republicans who see it as overly leftist and partisan.

The investigation could add to concerns that Trump's Republican administration is using the Justice Department to go after conservative opponents and his critics. It follows a number of other investigations into Trump foes that have raised questions about whether the law enforcement agency has been turned into a political weapon.

The center came under fresh scrutiny after the assassination last year of conservative activist Charlie Kirk brought renewed attention to its characterization of the group that Kirk founded and led. The center included a section on that group, Turning Point USA, in a report titled "The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024" that described the group as "A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024."

FBI Director Kash Patel said last year that the agency was severing its relationship with the center, which had long provided law enforcement with research on hate crime and domestic extremism. Patel said the center had been turned into a "partisan smear machine," and he accused it of defaming "mainstream Americans" with its "hate map" that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States.

House Republicans hosted a hearing centered on the SPLC in December, saying it coordinated efforts with President Joe Biden's Democratic administration "to target Christian and conservative Americans and deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech and free association."

Moms for Liberty Santa Clara Works with 917 Society

Getting Constitutions into the hands of every 8^th grader

Midterms are Fast Approaching. Your Vote Is Vitally Important

For The Calendar

Parents' Q&A Webinar- Wednesday May 6th

(Follow-up Session)

America Celebrates Its 250^th Birthday

1776-2026

Rooting Out Pornographic Materials In School Libraries

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.

^​Tales of Transition

If transitioning is like addiction, then we can’t expect detransitioners in recovery just to "move on"

The issue is, we are not different. Through my detransition, I came to understand that transition does not function like an identity journey. It functions like an addiction. Much like any addiction, it’s difficult to have an accurate perception of your circumstances while actively in its throes. In recovery, even things that seemed mundane at the time have their darkness revealed. Even when you have been clean for years, the addiction doesn’t disappear. It would be ludicrous to claim that an alcoholic who has been sober for a long time was never really an alcoholic. How is transition any different?

Using the Four C’s of addiction recognized in healthcare, we can see that the culture and process of transition closely mirror addictive patterns. In his paper “The Nature of Addiction”, Dr. David E. Smith, an addiction specialist and psychiatrist, labeled these four C’s as Craving, Compulsion, Control, and Consequences. Though those in active transition may resent the comparison, detransitioners often recognize its accuracy precisely because experience and distance provide clarity.

Craving

Social and medical transition are pursued for a reason. The reasons are as varied as the experiences of the people themselves, but are most commonly rooted in trauma that leaves a person disconnected from their sex and the traits/experiences they attribute to it. In cases like mine, it may come from a deep awareness of the dangers of living as a woman and a history of childhood sexual assault. The longing for safety created a sense of identification with men and the perceived benefits they enjoy: a desire to become something new.

For others, the craving may come from a perceived benefit or from a connection to the opposite sex. For example, an effeminate gay boy who enjoys sewing and talking to his sisters may align himself more with the women in his life than men. He may have his interests belittled or questioned in a way that he would not experience if he were a woman with the same interests, and may see his attraction to men as a “feminine” trait. He may then believe that if he could live as a woman, he could be truly seen and valued, rather than critically scrutinized, for the traits he possesses.

These are only a couple of examples of the multitude of factors that may drive someone to crave gender transition. In the abstract, one may think changing your gender should help these feelings. Unfortunately, there is no magic wand. The science behind medical transition is, at best, under-researched and, at worst, influenced by profit motives at the expense of patients’ health and safety.

Compulsion

Transition culture fosters compulsion by presenting an escalating series of interventions, each framed as necessary for authenticity. You’ve socially transitioned? Consider a legal name change! You don’t really look like your name, though — have you considered hormones? You’ve been on hormones for a while. You should really consider surgery! That surgery was validating — why not do another?

Even in the best-case scenario, the goalpost constantly moves within the mind of the trans person. There is always something to be changed to better align them with the impossible image in their mind. Procedures exist to imitate the primary and secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex, but it remains impossible to truly become the other sex. The very nature of being trans acknowledges that you are not the sex you aim to be seen as. This fact will continually fuel the compulsion to pursue further interventions to meet this impossible goal.

Control

Transition often creates an illusion of empowerment while gradually limiting a person’s real control over their body, health, and social relationships. Sometimes, addictions grow when a person feels it is the only thing in their life they can control. Eventually, they lose control over either the behavior itself or its consequences.

Several aspects of transition remain inherently uncontrollable: the physical impact of hormones, a body’s reaction to anesthesia, the unfiltered reactions of others to one’s appearance, and the physical and psychological effects of extreme physical and hormonal changes. The negative cultural response towards those who detransition or desist also contributes to a lack of control in one’s transition. Someone may transition for years, develop severe medical complications, and feel they have no choice but to continue for fear of social and political repercussions associated with desisting. Even if that person later recognizes they transitioned out of self-hatred or internalized homophobia, they may be treated as though their entire experience is invalid and be accused of serving an anti-trans political agenda.

Many detransitioners report being ostracized, doxxed, harassed, and receiving violent death threats when they speak about their experiences. The existence of this punitive culture reduces the control a person has over their own transition and hinders their ability to leave it. Much like a heroin addict may identify themselves with their addiction and the people they use with, and accept the negative impact on their life for the sake of the highs, a transition addict will push down any doubts or hard realities to remain in the culture and avoid confronting the inherent harm that comes with transition. Many trans people are encouraged to cut off friends and family members who don’t unquestioningly accept everything they say and do. This leaves them isolated and overly dependent on their trans identity and community for basic safety and social needs.

Surgical interventions to remove sex organs can leave someone entirely dependent on hormone replacement therapy for the rest of their life, whether or not they detransition. Living without sex hormones can lead to osteoporosis, depression, chronic exhaustion, sexual dysfunction, metabolic health issues, and more. This creates lifelong patients who are physically incapable of remaining independently healthy without intervention. They are physically and financially bound to this decision to the point that losing access would directly lead to rapid health deterioration in what would have otherwise been a healthy body. The complication rate associated with vaginoplasty is reported to be between 20% and 70% — an astonishingly high risk. Like any other addiction, these procedures take a healthy body and make it dependent. And this is only scratching the surface of the damage that can come with transitioning.

One of the most significant lifelong consequences is the lack of medical care and support for those who detransition. They are expected to go from a highly supported medicalized lifestyle to uncharted territory with no established support structures. I know several detransitioners who were denied care, surgeries, and support because they are detransitioners. Many of the medical consequences of transition do not go away with detransition and can require lifelong medical care. Though there was ample support to get into this situation, there are scant resources to help someone get out of it.

The consequences of transition are far-reaching and life-altering, and I have yet to meet anyone who has transitioned without some level of complication. Those who detransition are not uniquely impacted by negative side effects — we simply acknowledge the harm that the trans community collectively hides. With this in mind, how can a detransitioner simply ignore the impact of the culture of transition? How can we be asked to ignore the truths we have seen, lived, and been actively harmed by?

If transition mirrors addiction, then detransitioners are not traitors or anomalies — they are people in recovery. Asking them to “move on” without speaking about what they experienced demands silence where reflection is necessary and contributes to the stigma surrounding detransition.

Ginny Welsh is an artist and writer who spent her teen and early adult years enthralled with the world of transition. Though her medical transition would be seen as “successful”, the process was one of medical neglect and destruction. Disillusioned by the culture of delusion, lies, and inevitable health issues associated with transition, she finally began her detransition in 2024. She now lives as a happily married lesbian, deconstructing the industry of transition through her work.

^​Childhood In Need Of Restoration

A new investigative series from Restore Childhood

What I inherited from my parents was not professional prestige or a particular kind of education. It was something simpler and more durable: an understanding, absorbed from the stories they carried out of Odessa, of what it looks like when what children are taught serves the people in power rather than the children. When institutions that claim to protect the vulnerable actually exist to serve themselves.

My parents had the experience of it. I grew up knowing the difference.

I did not expect to need that knowledge here. But six years ago, I watched it happen in New York City, and I have spent the last six years documenting it.

the most were the children who could afford to lose the least.

In April 2021, I filed a lawsuit against Mayor Bill de Blasio to reopen New York City schools, demanding full five-day in-person instruction with teachers in every classroom. I co-organized #KeepNYCSchoolsOpen and in early 2022 I worked with an international team of scientists and pediatric, infectious disease, and ICU doctors to launch the Urgency of Normal — a toolkit and advocacy campaign that helped convince school districts across the country to end restrictions on children. I organized. I showed up at board meetings and press conferences and school gates.

In NYC schools did not resume anything resembling normalcy until the spring of 2021, when most school mandates were lifted and kids could play sports without Covid mandates.

I decided to make a documentary. Listen to this great conversation about my story with Karol Markowicz, a fellow “Open Schools Mom” from NYC and incredible journalist, on her terrific podcast:

15 DAYS: The Real Story of America’s Pandemic School Closures took three years and involved nearly sixty interviews. The people who sat down with us included Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, now the Director of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Scott Atlas. Anya Kamenetz. Martin Gurri. Ron Naclerio. Tiffany Justice. Maud Maron. Dozens of parents from across the country whose children lost years they will never get back.

The film had its world premiere on X in September 2025 and was seen by over one million people. It is now streaming on Amazon Prime, Apple TV, and Google Play. It holds an 8.8 rating on IMDb and a 9/10 from Film Threat, which called it “an institutional autopsy with a pulse.”

The cost was documented in the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Reading scores for 13-year-olds fell to levels last seen in 1971. Math scores fell to 1990 levels. The children who lost the most were the children in the districts where the unions were most powerful and the schools stayed closed the longest.

15 DAYS tells that story. It is the story of what happened and how.

But making the film raised questions I could not fully answer in a documentary. Every parent I sat across from, every official who had watched the science and ignored it, pointed toward the same harder question underneath the story we were telling.

Not what happened. Not how. But why, and for whom.

The Question the Film Could Not Fully Answer

When you document institutional behavior on this scale, when you watch a federal public health agency defer to a labor union’s preferences, the learning loss fall hardest on the most vulnerable children while the people making the decisions suffer no consequence, you have to ask whose interests were actually being served.

I grew up in New York City. But the stories my parents brought from Odessa gave me a frame for recognizing this kind of institutional architecture. It does not require a single command structure. It does not require explicit coordination. It requires only that the people with power over children’s education share a set of goals and act on them consistently.

This series documents that they do.

Off The Press  @OffThePress1            

“I do think we can and will rebuild, but the how-long or how, I think that’s something that a lot of people are trying to think about and figure out right now,” said Rachel Gittleman, president of AFGE Local 252, the union representing employees at the department. “I wouldn’t be in the job that I’m in if I didn’t believe that rebuilding was a possibility.”  

Education Week first reported that the Education Department sent a letter to Congress back in February informing lawmakers of the intention to shut down OELA. 

The office has managed almost $1 billion in Title III funds to support the 5 million English language learners in U.S. schools, helping schools and educators cover the costs of services and teacher preparation for these students.  

“The Department of Education is focused on returning education to the states while preserving critical funding and reducing unnecessary bureaucracy that can slow support to students and families. English Learners should never be treated as a siloed program, set aside as an afterthought,” Kirsten Baesler, assistant secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, said in a statement to The Hill.  

“Aligning this work across teams within the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education reduces administrative burden and empowers states to design integrated supports that reflect the needs of their English Learner students and families,” she added. 

While the official notice was put into place in February, work at OELA and other offices has been diminished for a year after the Education Department slashed its workforce from 4,000 to 2,000 employees last year.  

The Office of Civil Rights lost a number of staffers, even hiring some back due to the backlog in cases. Parents of students with disabilities have expressed concern about civil rights cases closing too soon and difficulties of knowing who to talk to after the reduction in force occurred.  

“Many students and families across the country will likely suffer many setbacks. They will be placed in sink or swim situations with no one there to help enforce the law from the federal government. No one’s there to help provide guidance to those schools that may be intentionally or unintentionally denied access to equal educational opportunities for English learners. It is a tremendous and catastrophic loss,” said David Hinojosa, co-director of litigation for National Center for Youth Law. 

But the cuts and consolidations of programs are not limited to inside the Education Department, but some are moving to other federal agencies.  

The Education Department has announced numerous interagency agreements, including major changes such as moving the federal student loan portfolio to the Treasury Department. Other agencies receiving programs from the department include the State Department, Department of Health and Human Services, Interior Department and the Labor Department. 

Despite court challenges, the administration is able to go full force with its plan until a decision is reached by a judge.  

“As it’s getting broken, it will be harder to rebuild. That’s why it’s all the more important to stop the harm, each stage of it, as soon as possible and start the rebuilding as soon as possible” said Rachel Homer, director of Democracy 2025 and senior attorney at Democracy Forward, which is involved in the lawsuit against the Education Department’s efforts to dismantle itself.  

“We are really seeing the impact on states, on state education agencies, on schools, on teachers, on professional staff, on students and on their parents around the country, and … it’s going to be harder to put back together again now that it’s broken. That’s not to say that repair is impossible. It is always possible to alter the harm and slowly rebuild. It just gets harder and harder over time,” she added. 

Even a win in court won’t automatically mean the Education Department has to undo all the changes it has made in the past year.  

“A court could look at what’s happening and order not only a stop, but that the department provides those services that it’s required to provide by law, and what that translates to in terms of exact details and staffing is all TBD [to be determined],” Homer said.  

The bright spot for opponents is all the moves to shutter programs at the department have been done at the executive level, meaning the changes can be undone by the next president if he or she chooses to do so.  

In order to close the federal agency completely, or even to solidify changes that have been made, the Trump administration would have to go through Congress.  

“Far and away, the most effective way and the most appropriate way to do this is by working with Congress to do it through legislation that’s the best path forward,” said Rick Hess, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. 

“But certainly short of that, the administration has every incentive, they should be working very hard to not only make sure that these new arrangements work, but that it’s obvious to observers that they’re working because that will make it more difficult for the next administration, if it wished to reverse the changes,” he added.

(The Center Square) – An Illinois-based parental rights group sent an open letter to the Southern Poverty Law Center requesting that it remove parental rights organizations from its “hate map,” where they are placed right alongside the Klu Klux Klan. 

Founder and president of parental rights group Awake Illinois Shannon Adcock told The Center Square that her organization’s letter “is about accountability.”

“The SPLC has spent four years trying to destroy us,” Adcock said. “With their federal indictment now public, the moment has arrived for them to clean up the mess they made or stand exposed as a discredited smear machine.” 

Adcock told The Center Square that the Southern Law Poverty Center’s (SPLC) hate map is “deliberately harmful.”

“The Hate Map is not a public service; it’s a partisan weapon,” Adcock said. “It brands peaceful, law-abiding parents as ‘hate groups’ right alongside the KKK, then legacy media, school administrators, and politicians treat that label as gospel.”  

The SPLC’s hate map “has triggered doxxing, death threats, job losses, frivolous lawsuits, and reluctant donors. It triggered mass legacy media smears,” Adcock said.

“In Naperville, it stopped the City Council from even giving me a vote for a volunteer, unpaid committee role,” Adcock said.

Awake Illinois is based out of Naperville.

Adcock told The Center Square that the SPLC "came after Awake Illinois before the ink was even dry on our founding documents because our message threatens their far-left, anti-American agenda.”

“While they poured resources into tracking hundreds of parental-rights chapters, they listed only 14 KKK groups, zero Antifa networks, and zero Islamist extremists,” Adcock said.

“That selective blindness isn’t oversight – it’s a strategy,” Adcock said. “The map doesn’t protect anyone; it silences dissent and turns ordinary moms and dads into targets.”

Adcock told The Center Square that “parents are fierce” but the attacks on them have been “absolute hell.” 

“Nonstop harassment, employers getting called, cars driving down our streets yelling that we’re Nazis,” Adcock said. “The SPLC’s smear turned everyday families into villains.”

Adcock noted that “at the exact same time [the SPLC was] defaming us, a federal grand jury just indicted [them] for secretly funneling millions to the very extremists it claims to oppose.”

“The irony is damning,” Adcock said.

The SPLC was indicted by the Department of Justice on charges it “secretly" funneled "more than $3 million in funds to members of white supremacist and extremist groups," as The Center Square reported.

A few of the groups the SPLC was accused of funding are the Klu Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance.

Adcock told The Center Square that the SPLC can “smear” parent rights groups “all it wants but the civil rights warriors of our era are uncancellable.”

“Their hate map failed,” Adcock said. “None of us will bow to their anarchy.” 

In her organization’s letter to the SPLC, Adcock called on the center to remove parental rights organizations from the hate map, to issue a public retraction and apologize for its reckless designations, as well as to adopt “verifiable standards that separate actual hate groups from citizens peacefully and lawfully advocating for their children.” 

“Cease treating parental advocacy as extremism,” Adcock wrote in the letter. “Parents are not the enemy; the real extremists are those erasing biological reality in classrooms and silencing dissent through defamation.”

righting years of wrongs,” Amelia Joy, a spokesperson for the Department of Education, said Tuesday.

Experts don’t recall a time when agreements were canceled by a new administration.

“This is very rare, bizarre,” said Nikhil Vashee, director of education law and policy at Family Equality, adding, “I think it’s going to cause a lot of confusion.” 

The Obama administration issued guidance in 2016 that federal sex discrimination law protected transgender students. That guidance was rescinded in 2017 by the first Trump administration.

The Biden administration attempted to make significant changes to Title IX by formally expanding nondiscrimination protections to LBGTQ students, putting gender identity and sexuality under the definition of sex discrimination. A federal judge struck down the changes early 2025.

The Trump administration has not indicated if any more Title IX agreements would be rescinded.

The action could cause districts that enter Title IX agreements to “slow roll their compliance” if they think a future administration could change or rescind the deal, Vashee said.  

Those impacted by the canceled agreements include Cape Henlopen School District in Delaware; Delaware Valley School District in Pennsylvania; Fife School District in Washington; and La Mesa-Spring Valley School District, Sacramento City Unified School District and Taft College, all in California.

The schools indicated that the canceled agreements would not impact their operations. 

“As always, we are committed to providing a safe and supportive learning environment where all students can succeed. We will continue to work collaboratively to ensure our practices and programs support the well-being, growth, and achievement of every student in our District,” Cape Henlopen School District said in a statement. 

As of Tuesday, Taft College said it has not received official communication from the Education Department but that “no further action is required” from its 2023 Title IX agreement with the Biden administration.

While some cheer the Trump administration’s move, they recognize it could create a situation in the future where another administration could use the same tactic to cancel Title IX agreements it does not favor.  

“This is unusual, what the Trump administration had done. And so, we’re obviously realistic that, yes, that could happen,” said Beth Parlato, senior legal counsel for Independent Women’s Law Center.

But Parlato noted Trump rescinded the agreements after a court struck down the Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX.  

“So while that could happen, I think that you have to look at the entire picture, and Title IX certainly was meant to protect girls and women and not to include” gender identity under the “definition of sex,” Parlato said. 

​The Trump administration has started many Title IX investigations into school districts, universities and states for allowing transgender students on girls sports teams and in girls locker rooms.  

And some schools have already agreed to change their policies around transgender athletes, like the University of Pennsylvania.

Others, like Minnesota, are ready to fight back after the Justice Department sued over alleged Title IX violations due to the state’s inclusion of transgender athletes. 

“Donald Trump is currently facing an unpopular war that he launched, rising gas prices, massive health insurance price hikes, and a partial government shutdown caused in part by his ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents killing two Minnesotans in broad daylight. It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address,” said Keith Ellison, the attorney general for Minnesota.  

The move by the Trump administration doesn’t only put past agreements into jeopardy but also reduces the strength of future settlements made between schools and the federal government over discrimination cases. 

“This does take away the importance from the resolution agreements. If the message that school districts get is, well, we can enter into it now, but they could just be rescinded based on the political whim of a new administration, like, what force does it actually have then to actually prevent discrimination,” said Shiwali Patel, senior director of education justice at the National Women’s Law Center. 

Patel said the agreements where the Trump administration “has forced schools to actually violate the law and enter into agreements that violate First Amendment freedoms or civil rights protection” should be “rescinded” by a new administration.

The changes impact six settlements that the Obama and Biden administrations reached with school districts in Delaware, Pennsylvania and Washington state, and two school districts and a community college in California.

he Department of Education announced Monday that its Civil Rights division is rescinding portions of resolution agreements that were made by previous administrations regarding transgender students.

The department argued that the settlements had no "legal basis" and were driven by an ideological interpretation of Title IX by protecting students on the basis of "gender identity" rather than biological sex. 

The changes impact six settlements that the Obama and Biden administrations reached with school districts in Delaware, Pennsylvania and Washington state, and two school districts and a community college in California.

“Today, the Trump Administration is removing the unnecessary and unlawful burdens that prior Administrations imposed on schools in its relentless pursuit of a radical transgender agenda," Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said in a statement. "While previous Administrations launched Title IX investigations based on ‘misgendering,’ the Trump Administration is investigating allegations of girls and women being injured by men on their sports team or feeling violated by men in their intimate spaces.

“Today is yet another demonstration of the Trump Administration’s commitment to uphold the law, protect our students, and restore common sense," she continued. "No longer will the federal government force educational institutions to violate the law or punish them for upholding it.” 

Several school officials told the New York Times that they had either not heard from the Education Department about the changes so far or were not interested in changing the agreement, though school boards will have to vote on potential changes. 

The department is also looking to terminate similar agreements with the Sacramento City Unified School District in California, the Cape Henlopen School District in Delaware and the Fife School District in Washington state.

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