Today is May Day, and we begin hot with nationwide protests in our schools. This shouldn’t come as a surprise — the past few weeks have been a whirlwind of political events. From the assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner to the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, there is no shortage of political controversy.
What is May Day, you might ask? For months, teachers&#8217; unions and high-profile left-wing nonprofits have <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/a-may-day-2026-host-toolkit-includes-training-information-for-a-coordinated-day-of-action-and-promotes-tactics-such-as-a-school-walk-in-nea-provided-1-7m-in-funding-to-organization-involved/">geared</a> up for mass mobilizations and boycotts to honor the socialist holy day and to flex their political power. Part of the preparation <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/a-sunrise-movement-training-guidebook-calls-for-students-to-take-action-monthly-to-disrupt-business-as-usual-to-bring-about-a-political-revolution/">efforts include</a> training and organizing children to engage in <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/k-12-student-walkout-and-protest-tracker/">school walkouts</a> and protests.
While left-wing activism is not new itself, what is relatively new is the degree to which the education system has been corrupted to engineer new generations to activists. These May Day protests are a feature, a byproduct really, of an education system steeped in radical ideologies designed to mobilize far-left activism and a “<a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/newly-obtained-slides-from-a-sunrise-movement-membership-meeting-calls-for-a-political-revolution-that-includes-the-need-to-structurally-change-the-foundations-of-this-country-to-achieve-eco/">political revolution</a>.”
Nor are these protests the end. They are an opening act for what the professional agitators and activists intend to be an ongoing affair leading up to the 2028 elections. K-12 schools are strategic collateral damage.
This pattern is visible in the series of <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/k-12-student-walkout-and-protest-tracker/">student walkouts</a> since January, many of which focused on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Less visible to the public, however, is the role of the <a href="https://defendinged.org/incidents/nea-president-becky-pringle-joins-sunrise-movements-roadmap-to-political-revolution-event-series/">teachers&#8217; unions</a> and <a href="https://defendinged.org/incidents/group-messages-and-training-documents-suggest-k-12-student-ice-protests-in-minnesota-may-be-organized-by-the-sunrise-movement-and-its-members-including-a-current-ivy-league-student-with-ties-to-past/">nonprofit allies</a> in these protests.
For American children, the learning experience is a constant barrage of heavily lopsided <a href="https://defendinged.org/incidents/minnesota-eighth-graders-shown-videos-of-ice-arrests-and-alleged-harassment-of-u-s-citizens-principal-says-its-part-of-state-geography-standards/">political messaging</a> meant to train the youngest kids to see the world through a <a href="https://www.newsmax.com/politics/critical-competency-consciousness/2023/12/07/id/1145144/">warped oppressor-oppressed</a> framing and to engage in action or activism to stop the perceived “injustice.”
Whether through <a href="https://web.ped.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/K12ParentandFamilySocialStudiesGuides.pdf">state standards</a> and guidance, such as New Mexico Public Education Department’s Social Studies “<a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/new-mexico-education-documents-for-high-school-history-and-ethnic-studies-include-climate-change-intersectionality-and-january-6-insurrection-content/">Instructional Scope</a>” or <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/liberated-k-12-liberated-ethnic-studies-industrial-complex/">ethnic studies</a> courses, students are being conditioned to be political actors from the <a href="https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Liberated-Ethnic-Studies-Model-Curriculum-What-is-Normal_-Slides-presentation-Gr-Pk-2.pdf">earliest ages</a>.
For example, a free <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/liberated-universities-landing-page/">lesson</a> produced by the University of Minnesota’s &#8220;Ethnic Studies Initiative” teaches sixth-grade students about the Black Lives Matter movement through the creation of “protest art.” The middle school students are then required to produce their own social justice protest art.
Such indoctrination is not only reserved for ethnic studies. It has permeated into our school system through Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) <a href="https://defendinged.org/resources/sel101/">programming</a>.
SEL is no less a political tool than ethnic studies. In 2019, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) <a href="https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2021/jagers_skoog-hoffman_barthelus_schlund">mainstreamed</a> “transformative” SEL, which integrates anti-racism and <a href="https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/research-evaluation/youth-organizing-and-transformative-sel">activism</a> into its framework.
Second Step, a popular SEL company that utilizes CASEL’s platform, went further and <a href="https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-28-at-4.17.30-PM.png">aligned</a> its curriculum with Learning for Justice’s Social Justice Standards, focusing specifically on action and activism. Learning for Justice is a program of the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-charges-southern-poverty-law-center-wire-fraud-false-statements-and">Southern Poverty Law Center</a> (SPLC).
As students, teachers&#8217; unions, and left-wing activist organizations take to the streets this May Day to champion policies and an ideology that the majority of Americans reject, the public needs to understand that this is the starting gun, not the finish line.
Left-wing actors desperately want a “political revolution” and have no problem using other people&#8217;s children to achieve their goals. They have no issue turning the K-12 education system into a far-left activist pipeline. What we’re seeing now is just the beginning.
* * *
Rhyen Staley is a researcher for Defending Education. He holds a master&#8217;s degree in elementary education and has over a decade of classroom experience in both public and private schools. He has over 25 years of coaching experience from junior high to Division I.

May Day Workers Rally

Teachers’ Unions Celebrate Socialist Holy Day

DW Opinion

Leftists

Protests

Public Schools

Students

Teachers Unions

Teenagers

Across the country, policymakers have long assumed that boosting K-12 funding is the surest path to better student outcomes. Yet decades of rising spending have proven otherwise. The missing ingredient is not money — it’s meaningful choice.
Florida provides one of the clearest examples. In <a href="https://www.fldoe.org/schools/school-choice/k-12-scholarship-programs/ftc/">2001</a>, the state launched a modest tax-credit scholarship program to help low-income students access alternative educational options. Roughly 15,000 students participated in the program’s first year. Today, Florida’s school choice ecosystem serves <a href="https://www.edchoice.org/state/florida/">over 500,000 students</a> across multiple programs, giving families options tailored to their children’s needs.
Critics long warned that policies empowering parents with educational options for their children harm public schools and their students. The data, however, tell a different story — the positive effects of school choice extend beyond participating students.
Florida public school students exposed to greater levels of school choice competition have experienced learning gains equivalent to as much as <a href="https://www.federationforchildren.org/florida-school-choice-cost-effectiveness-study/">120 additional days</a> of instruction in reading — nearly two-thirds of a school year. These effects are especially strong for low-income students, who often have little to no alternative to their residentially assigned district public school, regardless of whether it fails to educate children in the basics or to keep them physically safe.
A substantial body of <a href="https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/123-of-School-Choice.pdf">research</a> across multiple states — including Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina — shows that as public schools face increased competition, students who remain in traditional public schools achieve higher test scores and stronger outcomes.
It is no coincidence that students do better when school choice exists. When families have options, schools must compete. The market force of competition is a powerful incentive that can drive innovation, sharpen priorities, and shift the focus from bureaucratic compliance to providing improved academic instruction. It also encourages schools to be more responsive to parents and more intentional in how they use resources.
For years, however, the default answer in education debates has been simple: spend more money. Calls to “fully fund” public schools are constant, yet rarely defined — and even less often tied to accountability for results. What matters is not how much is spent, but whether those dollars translate into improved student learning.
Despite steady increases in per-student spending nationwide, academic outcomes have persistently been low for years. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often called the “Nation’s Report Card,” <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/reading/2024/g4_8/">reading scores</a> and <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/mathematics/2024/g4_8/?grade=4">math scores</a> remained relatively flat, then declined sharply following the pandemic and prolonged school closures.
The most recent results reveal that <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/reading/2024/g4_8/?grade=4">69% of fourth-grade students</a> and <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/reading/2024/g4_8/?grade=8">70% of eighth-grade students</a> are not proficient in reading, while <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/mathematics/2024/g4_8/">61% of fourth-grade students</a> and <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/mathematics/2024/g4_8/">72% of eighth-grade students</a> aren’t proficient in math. With an additional <a href="https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-200-billion-question-how-much-of-federal-covid-19-relief-funding-for-schools-will-go-to-covid-19-relief/">$200 billion</a> poured into K-12 public education during the pandemic, these figures underscore that greater funding does not equate to increased student learning.
Simply put, more money has not produced better outcomes. Instead, what has made a measurable difference is competition.
A recent <a href="https://www.federationforchildren.org/florida-school-choice-cost-effectiveness-study/">analysis</a> by Patrick Graff finds that Florida’s school choice programs are more than 11 times as cost-effective at improving public school student achievement compared with equivalent increases in K–12 spending. Achieving similar gains through funding alone would have required more than $1,400 in additional spending per student annually, totaling roughly <a href="https://www.federationforchildren.org/florida-school-choice-cost-effectiveness-study/">$31.8 billion</a> over 15 years.
Nationwide, school choice spending accounts for an incredibly small share of state funding. For example, in 2022, school choice programs accounted for just <a href="https://www.edchoice.org/the-fiscal-effects-of-school-choice/">0.3%</a> of total state spending. In Arizona, critics have fear-mongered that the state’s school choice program with universal eligibility would bankrupt the state. The claim is far from factual as the <a href="https://www.edchoice.org/the-fiscal-effects-of-school-choice/">Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Account</a> program funding in 2022 was “only 0.9% of the state budget,” and the state experienced a <a href="https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/arizonas-universal-esa-program-a-history-of-surplus-savings-media-misinformation/">$2 billion surplus</a>. The end result of school choice is enormous savings to the state.
These are not isolated cases, but are becoming a consistent pattern emerging across the country. The improved outcomes driven by school choice are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
A 2025 <a href="https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/wordpressua.uark.edu/dist/9/544/files/2025/10/2024-25arkansaseducationfreedomaccountsprogramannualreport.pdf">study</a> of Arkansas’ Education Freedom Accounts finds that school choice is delivering strong academic performance, high family satisfaction, and sustained participation, signaling real benefits for students.
In Washington, D.C., students who used a scholarship through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program were <a href="https://www.congress.gov/event/112th-congress/house-event/LC2715/text?utm_source=chatgpt.com">21 percentage points</a> more likely to graduate from high school than their peers who did not receive one.
Similarly, in Milwaukee — home to the country’s longest-running modern private school scholarship program — longitudinal research shows that students participating in a school choice program are <a href="https://scdp.uark.edu/milwaukee-parental-choice-program-evaluation/">more likely</a> to graduate from high school and attend college than comparable public school students.
A study by the Urban Institute on the Educational Choice Scholarship program found that students in Ohio using private school scholarships were significantly more likely to <a href="https://www.urban.org/research/publication/effects-ohios-edchoice-voucher-program-college-enrollment-and-graduation">attend and complete college</a>, including higher rates of bachelor’s degree attainment.
Together, these findings point to lasting benefits that extend beyond K–12.
As the traditional system continues to fall short, the evidence points to a clear reality: funding levels alone do not account for differences in student performance. What does make a difference is access to educational options. School choice introduces the kind of competitive pressure that has long driven improvement in other sectors — and education is no exception. As more families recognize these benefits, demand grows further.
If the goal is to raise student achievement — particularly for the most vulnerable — expanding access to educational options warrants adoption. It delivers significant advantages for students who pursue alternatives and for those who remain in traditional public schools.
Education policy should be guided by what works. For decades, the prevailing assumption has been that increased spending will reliably produce better results. The data tells a different story. School choice, by contrast, has demonstrated consistent, measurable effects — not only on academic performance but also on long-term outcomes such as high school graduation, college enrollment, and degree attainment.
The question is no longer if school choice works — it’s whether policymakers elected by the taxpayers, but beholden to the teachers unions, are willing to act on the evidence.
* * * 
Dr. Keri D. Ingraham is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute, Director of the American Center for Transforming Education, and a Senior Fellow at Independent Women’s Forum.

Parents Are Gaining More Control In Education And The Results Are Hard To Ignore

Charter Schools

Florida

School Choice

The Virginia General Assembly has now passed legislation regulating how public schools may teach about the events of January 6, 2021. If the bill becomes law, teachers discussing the topic will be required to present the events in a very specific way and prohibited from presenting certain viewpoints about the 2020 election.
Regardless of where one falls politically on those issues, the constitutional problem should be obvious. The First Amendment exists precisely to prevent the government from dictating what citizens must believe or say about matters of public debate. The government may adopt curriculum standards and decide what subjects are taught in public schools, but there is a significant difference between setting a curriculum and mandating a particular political or historical conclusion.
Specifically, the legislation provides that if a Virginia public school chooses to teach about the events of January 6, 2021, the instruction may not portray those events as a “peaceful protest.” It also prohibits teachers from presenting as credible any statement suggesting that there was widespread election fraud that could have changed the results of the 2020 presidential election. The statute goes even further by directing that the events must be described as an “unprecedented, violent attack on United States democratic institutions…for the purpose of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.”
In practical terms, the law does two things at once. First, it prohibits certain viewpoints from being discussed as credible in the classroom. Second, it compels teachers to affirm a specific government-approved description of the event.
That distinction matters constitutionally.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the government cannot compel individuals to speak a government-approved message. From West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943 to more modern cases involving compelled speech, the Court has consistently held that the First Amendment protects citizens from being forced to adopt or express ideological viewpoints mandated by the state.
 This principle is not about whether one agrees with the government’s position. In fact, the entire point of the First Amendment is to protect speech that the government — or even the majority — dislikes.
Once the government is permitted to mandate the “correct” interpretation of a political event, the precedent is dangerous. Today it may be January 6. Tomorrow it could be any number of controversial historical topics. Ask yourself this – if you think HB333 is good – how would you feel if President Trump ordered the Department of Education to mandate all K-12 education that ICE never made mistakes and anyone protesting them were domestic terrorists? Or that Joe Biden was a puppet president lacking mental capability to make any legitimate decisions. No alternatives – just those narratives – in every school in America – no negotiation. I suspect if you are left of center that would make your blood boil – and it’s for these reasons that the Constitution does not allow the government to decide which political narratives are permitted and which must be suppressed.
It is also worth remembering that the role of education is not to enforce political consensus but to encourage critical thinking. Students should be exposed to evidence, debate, and competing interpretations of historical events. That is how a free society educates its citizens. A law that restricts discussion to one approved narrative does the opposite.
To be clear, none of this means schools must endorse every viewpoint or conspiracy theory. Teachers can and should teach facts supported by evidence. But that is different from a legislature commanding that one political interpretation must be presented and others may not even be discussed as credible.
When the government crosses that line, the courts exist to review whether the Constitution has been violated. If this bill becomes law, there is a strong argument that it raises serious First Amendment concerns involving compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination. Those issues deserve careful consideration by the judiciary rather than being resolved through legislative decree. The debate about January 6 will continue for many years, as debates about major historical events always do. But in a constitutional republic, those debates should occur through free discussion and scholarship — not through laws that attempt to enforce a single government-approved narrative.
The Constitution protects the right of Americans to disagree about politics, history, and public affairs. That protection applies even — and perhaps especially — when the government would prefer that disagreement disappear.
 * * * 
Timothy V. Anderson is an attorney and a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Abigail Spanberger Sworn In As Virginia Governor

Blue State Moves To Muzzle Oral History Of J6

January 6

Opinion

Virginia

When hundreds of students across the country walked out of class last week to protest ICE, the scene felt uncomfortably familiar. The chants, the certainty, and the urgency to declare a side reflected a pattern my generation repeats during nearly every political moment: strong emotion paired with limited understanding. Watching it unfold as a high school student, the issue appeared larger than a single protest. The walkouts exposed an education system that failed to teach students how the government functions — or how federal law enforcement actually operates.
From Georgia to California, students are walking out of class demanding that ICE be “removed” from their communities. In practice, for many of my peers, these walkouts function less as political statements and more as an excuse to miss class. At Lakeside High School in Georgia — where many of the protest videos originated — approximately 1,500 of the school’s roughly 2,200 students participated in an organized walkout protesting ICE. That would suggest that more than half the student body is so politically engaged that they are willing to sacrifice instructional time for a policy cause — an assumption undermined by the fact that fewer than 40% of Americans ages 18-19 vote.
For the small minority of students who genuinely care, the protests offer an opportunity to join a cause they assume is morally righteous. For all participants, however, these walkouts rest on an incomplete — and often incorrect — understanding of what ICE actually does and who holds authority over immigration policy.
The collapse of civic education in K–12 schools has produced widespread confusion about how the federal government functions. Many students believe ICE writes immigration law rather than enforces statutes passed by Congress. Others assume a president can simply suspend laws at will, or that public outrage alone can override the legislative process and reshape federal policy.
What no one has taught my peers is that Congress — not ICE, and not the White House — writes immigration law. Every administration, including President Trump’s, is obligated to enforce the laws Congress passes.
This confusion among students is not a failure of intelligence. It reflects an education system that avoids political controversy at all costs. Teachers are warned not to “take sides,” administrators steer clear of any topic that might provoke backlash, and students grow up believing that discussing the law or governance is dangerous. Instead of learning how the government functions, students learn how to talk around it.
This silence shapes how my generation engages with politics. Only a few miles from my Long Island high school, Generation Z played a decisive role in electing a socialist mayor in America’s most capitalist city. Many of those voters were never taught about the historical consequences of socialism — the collapse of economies, the erosion of democratic institutions, and the human suffering that follows. Those lessons are treated as too political for classrooms. The result is a generation making political choices without understanding the ideas being supported.
Students are not avoiding dialogue because of apathy. They avoid it because schools have trained them to fear disagreement. When issues such as immigration, abortion, or Israel arise, classrooms go quiet — not from a lack of opinion, but from concern over social and academic consequences.
Before becoming a nationally syndicated columnist, I hesitated to speak openly in classrooms. I rewrote comments, withheld arguments, and waited for safer moments to share my views. Now, I voice those perspectives in front of millions of readers, fully aware of the consequences. But even with all the pushback, my openness has not only sharpened my passion for politics but produced an impact far greater than I ever anticipated.
The danger of silence becomes clear during moments like these walkouts. When students protest without understanding what they want to change or how change occurs, it reveals how unprepared they are for civic participation. Informed activism cannot exist without civic knowledge.
Restoring serious civic education remains the only path forward. Students should learn not only which policies exist, but why they exist. They should understand how Congress, the courts, and federal agencies interact. Schools should encourage substantive debate rather than discourage it. Avoiding discomfort leaves students unprepared for the responsibilities of citizenship — and for the world they are about to enter.
* * *
Gregory Lyakhov is a nationally syndicated columnist and podcast host, regularly appearing on national television to discuss education policy, U.S. politics, and public affairs.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

College Students Walkout In Protest Against ICE In Texas

The ICE Walkouts Prove My Generation Wasn’t Taught How Government Works

anti-ICE protests

College

Education

High School

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

College ed

Why America’s Colleges Are Far More Fragile Than They Appear, Part II

American Universities

Economics

finance

Ivy League

Student Loans

College decay

Why America’s Colleges Are Far More Fragile Than They Appear, Part I

Artificial intelligence has been taking the world by storm, beginning a whole new technological revolution that has already influenced tens of millions of Americans and encouraged hundreds of billions in <a href="https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report/economy">corporate investments</a>.
A recent Elon University <a href="https://www.elon.edu/u/news/2025/03/12/survey-52-of-u-s-adults-now-use-ai-large-language-models-like-chatgpt/">poll</a> found that over 50% of Americans now use large language models like ChatGPT and Google Gemini, some of the most popular artificial intelligence resources in use.
As a student, I can validate these findings.
When ChatGPT was released almost three years ago, many of my classmates and I quickly adopted artificial intelligence as part of our daily routine, using it for tasks like summarizing texts and exploring topics that would normally require far more time and effort. My phone now includes a quick access button linked directly to Perplexity AI’s voice mode, allowing me to directly open the app and verbally ask questions or verify comments.
An <a href="https://cdn.openai.com/global-affairs/openai-edu-ai-ready-workforce.pdf">OpenAI report</a> confirms this trend, finding that three in four college-aged users desire to use AI in their education and career.
Personally, my work and education has greatly benefited from this technology, as I am able to selectively choose the AI most applicable to my research and generate clear, yet expansive information on any subject that interests me, all without cheating or stealing information.
But, as everyone who pays even the slightest bit of attention to the news knows, there are plenty of valid concerns associated with artificial intelligence and its uses.
<a href="https://datascience.hawaii.edu/profile/peter-sadowski/">Dr. Peter Sadowski,</a> an Associate Professor at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, has been examining this issue. His work focuses on machine learning and artificial intelligence, specifically how to use these methods to address the most challenging problems in science and engineering.
As a teacher, Dr. Sadowski has noticed a massive shift in the way AI has transformed education as we know it.
“With these language models, it is just so easy for students to take an assignment and run in through ChatGPT and get results,” he told The Daily Wire. “It can write an essay, it can solve a programming assignment, it can solve math assignments. That is just a huge shift.”
In response to this new challenge, Sadowski made some changes to his teaching model.
“The first week ChatGPT went live, I immediately abandoned take-home tests, since ChatGPT could just do all the questions … Most schools have some evolving AI guidances and policies, but the best way to learn is to experiment to become familiar with the capabilities of these technologies.”
Many schools have introduced AI policies to inform both students and faculty on how to use the new technology responsibly. For instance, my own school, the Franciscan University of Steubenville, introduced <a href="https://franciscan.smartcatalogiq.com/en/2024-2025/undergraduate-catalog-2024-2025/academic-and-university-policies/academic-integrity/use-of-artificial-intelligence">guidance</a> on using artificial intelligence, including <a href="https://magazine.franciscan.edu/articles/navigating-ai/">discussions</a> on its use in the <a href="https://magazine.franciscan.edu/articles/artificial-intelligence-in-the-classroom/">classroom</a>.
“The teaching profession has to adapt to these new technologies,” Sadowski said. “We need fair ways to evaluate student learning — more in-class exams, more careful assignments that test student learning beyond what they can do with AI.”
While many students like me largely support a responsible integration of AI into academia, sentiments remain divided among the American public, with 42% believing that it will make life worse, according to an <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nbc-news-polls/poll-americans-form-views-ai-divided-role-school-everyday-life-rcna212782">NBC News poll</a>.
Some have a far darker view of the technology, with a new <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/article/poll-most-americans-think-ai-will-destroy-humanity-someday-212132958.html">Yahoo/YouGov poll</a> finding that 53% of the 1,770 individuals polled believe that AI is likely to someday “destroy humanity.”
“It&#8217;s become so easy and free for students to do this that it&#8217;s just shaken up education,” Sadowski said. &#8220;In computer science, the process of building something yourself helps you learn to think clearly and break down problems. If you let AI do all your homework, you will miss out on important learning opportunities, and when the AI fails, students get stuck. I see that happening in the classroom.”
Despite the possibility of cheating and outsourcing labor through AI systems, I’m optimistic — and so is Sadowski.
“In my own field, it takes students a long time to learn these technical skills to make progress on the research side,&#8221; he said. “I’m excited about the ability of AI to help student scientists accelerate research. That’s the hope.”
* * *
Simon Olech is a reporter studying journalism at the National Journalism Center in Washington, D.C.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

High school students e-learning over computers in the classroom.

I’m A College Student. Here’s Why I’m Cautiously Optimistic About AI.

Artificial Intelligence

ChatGPT

Gen Z

interview

OpenAI

For most of its existence, Wikipedia has been hailed as a marvel of the digital age: a sprawling, collaborative encyclopedia written by anyone and corrected by everyone. An open marketplace of knowledge. A monument to the democratization of information.
But democracies — political or epistemic — rarely collapse in an instant. They erode from within. And what my team at the Media Research Center (MRC) has uncovered about how Wikipedia operates, and how carefully it conceals that machinery, should alarm anyone who believes a self-governing society depends on an open, honest information sphere.
<a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/free-speech/luis-cornelio/2025/11/17/how-wikipedia-infiltrated-colleges-train-next-generation">Our recent investigation</a> shows that Wikipedia and its educational partner, Wiki Education, have developed a vast, little-known system for shaping, and increasingly weaponizing, the content millions of Americans rely on every day. What we found is not simply concerning; it reveals the quiet architecture of an ideological project. It is also possible that, in attempting to hide its operations, Wikipedia has crossed legal lines that could carry serious consequences.
Wikipedia’s co-founder, Larry Sanger, has said openly that the platform no longer reflects its original mission of neutrality. It has become a curator of political narrative, amplifying the messaging of the left rather than serving as an impartial arbiter of knowledge.
<h2>The Blacklist(s)</h2>
Wikipedia is transparent about one thing: it blacklists right-leaning news outlets and conservative non-profits. But even this admission obscures more than it reveals. In reality, <a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/free-speech/luis-cornelio/2025/02/03/exclusive-wikipedia-effectively-blacklists-all-right">Wikipedia maintains three tiers of blacklists</a> — Blacklisted, Deprecated, and Generally Unreliable — each designed to exclude certain publishers from the encyclopedia’s information ecosystem.
The “Blacklisted” category is the most severe. Sources here are blocked entirely; links cannot even be submitted for review. This is Wikipedia’s “do not pass go” list. It includes outlets such as the Heritage Foundation, Breitbart News, and the Washington Examiner. Content from these organizations is not debated or fact-checked, it is simply turned away at the gate.
The second level, “Deprecated,” involves sources that are “generally prohibited.” Users attempting to cite to these sources receive warnings, before Wikipedia’s editors almost always reject the suggestions. LifeSiteNews, Newsmax, The Daily Caller, and Blaze Media fall here. The effect is the same as the first list, exclusion, just with a thin procedural layer.
The third category, “Generally Unreliable,” is essentially a blacklist with a tiny escape hatch. Wikipedia discourages use of these sources and directs contributors to “more reliable” outlets. The Daily Wire is stuck in this purgatory: technically citable, but heavily disfavored.
The disparities this system produces are staggering. The Daily Wire has been cited only 445 times across Wikipedia. The New York Times, by contrast, appears in more than 1.6 million citations — meaning Wikipedia cites the Times nearly 4,000 times for every single Daily Wire reference. Similar gaps exist with Newsweek, Politico, and The Washington Post, which are cited hundreds of times more frequently than their far more reliable conservative counterparts.
More broadly, <a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/free-speech/luis-cornelio/2025/02/03/exclusive-wikipedia-effectively-blacklists-all-right">MRC research shows</a> that Wikipedia cites to left-leaning outlets almost 20 times more often than to right-leaning outlets. <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/695762/trust-media-new-low.aspx">Trust in the media is at an all-time low</a>, specifically because of the bias injected into news stories. Wikipedia intentionally magnifies that bias, resulting in gross distortions of reality. We have documented Wikipedia’s smears against many political figures, including President Donald Trump, Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Charlie Kirk. 
When gatekeepers designate half the country’s media ecosystem — representing tens of millions of readers — as inherently “unreliable,” the result is not a pursuit of truth. It is a systematic silencing of outlets disfavored by the ideological left. The encyclopedia built on openness now thrives on exclusion.
<div id="attachment_1011409" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1011409" class="size-large wp-image-1011409" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-864x576.jpg" alt="skynesher. Getty Images. Male teacher giving a lecture from desktop PC during a class at computer lab." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-1079587192-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />skynesher. Getty Images.</div>
<h2>The Student Army</h2>
Yet the core of the MRC’s latest findings lies not in the blacklist itself, but in the machinery feeding content into Wikipedia: Wiki Education, a California nonprofit created as a spin-off of the Wikimedia Foundation, operating with its funding, personnel, and blessing.
Wiki Education recruits college professors to assign Wikipedia editing as coursework. Since 2010, more than 145,000 students have participated, generating over 120 million words of content. On the surface, this could be a civic success story — young people helping build a shared public resource.
But the reality, based on the courses Wiki Education recruits and supports, is far more ideological. Classes such as Queering Religion, Critical Race Feminisms, Queer of Color Critique, Gender and Identity in STEM, and similarly activist-oriented seminars are not fringe exceptions; they are typical of the curriculum Wiki Education promotes.
These disciplines are not merely academic; they are frameworks for political activism. And the content they generate — guided by ideology rather than neutrality — flows directly into Wikipedia. The encyclopedia becomes the final destination for arguments crafted within contemporary left-wing academic theory.
<h2>The Taxpayer Foots The Bill</h2>
Even more astonishing is that this ideological pipeline is largely underwritten by taxpayers. Because Wiki Education embeds itself in public universities, it leverages state-funded faculty, classrooms, and infrastructure to funnel student labor into Wikipedia. Students believe they are learning digital literacy; in practice, many are producing politicized content for a global platform.
The pattern extends to Wiki Education’s leadership. Every traceable political donation from its senior staff and board flows to Democratic candidates, progressive PACs, and left-aligned advocacy groups. While not illegal, it reveals the institutional alignment shaping the organization’s priorities.
<h2>A Potential Legal Problem</h2>
This coordinated system — Wikipedia funding Wiki Education, Wiki Education training student editors, students supplying content that reinforces Wikipedia’s ideological filters — creates not only an informational problem but potentially a legal one.
When Wikipedia spun off Wiki Education in 2013, the structural ties between the two organizations remained unusually close. Yet Wikipedia has insisted in court filings, sworn under penalty of perjury, that it is merely an “interactive computer service,” not a “publisher.” It did so to seek the liability protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
If Wikipedia effectively controls Wiki Education as an alter ego — training, directing, and financing its editorial labor — then it may have misrepresented its true operations under oath. Filing false statements in court is a crime under state and federal law. Attorneys general in jurisdictions where Wikipedia has invoked Section 230, like the state of Florida, may have ample reason to investigate those claims. And while the U.S. Department of Justice has its hands full unwinding the malfeasance committed during the Biden administration, Attorney General Pam Bondi might be interested in this, too.
<h2>Why It Matters</h2>
Wikipedia is not just a reference site. It is infrastructure. It consistently dominates Google search results — Google itself being a company that aggressively manipulates search results to push its own ideology. And modern AI systems, including chatbots, draw heavily from Wikipedia’s content pipelines. When Wikipedia’s entries tilt, so does the entire information ecosystem.
Its blacklist system also has downstream economic effects. Being labeled “unreliable” reduces an outlet’s visibility, decreases traffic, and predictably harms ad revenue. The encyclopedia’s judgments ripple outward into media markets and public perception.
Given these stakes, Congress should investigate. So should the Federal Trade Commission. And attorneys general, especially in cases where Wikipedia has defended its corporate structure under oath, should scrutinize whether the organization misrepresented how it operates.
Wikipedia has every right to express ideological preferences. But it does not have the right to cloak them behind false claims of neutrality to donors, to engage in deceptive or anticompetitive practices, or to misrepresent its structure in legal proceedings.
Transparency requires accountability. And it is long past time for the public to understand what Wikipedia has become.
* * *
Dan Schneider is Vice President for Free Speech at the Media Research Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Wikipedia

From Open Encyclopedia To Ideological Weapon: Wikipedia’s Hidden War On Truth

Censorship

Democrats

Investigation

Media Bias

Media Research Center

Silicon Valley

Last week, the U.S. Department of Education announced six interagency agreements (IAAs) with four federal agencies to take another major step forward toward fulfilling the promise of dismantling the 45-year failure of the astronomically expensive and ineffective department.
The agreements are with the Department of Labor, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of State. According to a <a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-announces-six-new-agency-partnerships-break-federal-bureaucracy">press release</a> from the Department of Education, “by partnering with agencies that are best positioned to deliver results for students and taxpayers, these IAAs will streamline federal education activities on legally required programs, reduce administrative burdens, and refocus programs and activities to better serve students and grantees.”
The six agreements are as follows. First is the Elementary and Secondary Education Partnership between the Department of Education and the Department of Labor. Going forward, the Department of Labor will begin playing a larger role in the administration of federal K-12 education programs to enhance <a href="https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fact-sheet-department-of-education-ed-and-department-of-labor-dol-elementary-and-secondary-education-partnership-112465.pdf">alignment</a> with workforce and postsecondary programs, resulting in “a cohesive, unified strategy for talent development.”
Second is the Postsecondary Education Partnership, which is also between the Department of Education and the Department of Labor. It will streamline the administration of postsecondary education programs and <a href="https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fact-sheet-department-of-education-ed-and-department-of-labor-dol-postsecondary-education-partnership-112464.pdf">will</a> “create a better coordinated Federal approach to postsecondary education and workforce development to help more Americans achieve career success.”
Third is the Indian Education Partnership between the Department of Education and the Department of the Interior. This includes the Department of the Interior administering Indian education spanning from elementary, secondary, and higher education, as well as career and technical education and vocational rehabilitation. This will ensure Native American students are better served with education, training, and workforce programs.
Fourth is the Foreign Medical Accreditation Partnership between the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. It leverages the expertise of the Department of Health and Human Services to evaluate whether the accreditation standards for foreign medical schools are comparable to those of U.S. medical schools. According to a <a href="https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fact-sheet-department-of-education-ed-and-department-of-health-and-human-services-hhs-foreign-medical-accreditation-partnership-112462.pdf">fact sheet</a> in conjunction with the press release, the “accreditation standards must be comparable between U.S. and foreign medical schools in order for American students enrolled in medical schools outside of the U.S. to be eligible for federal student loans.”
Fifth is a second agreement between the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, termed the Child Care Access Means Parents in School Partnership. The partnership <a href="https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fact-sheet-department-of-education-ed-and-department-of-health-and-human-services-hhs-child-care-access-means-parents-school-partnership-112460.pdf">will</a> “promote innovation and process improvements in pursuit of better outcomes for parents and children” by streamlining policies and program requirements, and also <a href="https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fact-sheet-department-of-education-ed-and-department-of-health-and-human-services-hhs-child-care-access-means-parents-school-partnership-112460.pdf">providing</a> “campus-based child care services to low-income students.”
Sixth is the International Education and Foreign Language Studies Partnership between the Department of Education and the Department of State. It enhances the efficiency of the Fulbright-Hays grant programs, which equip Americans with skills critical to our national security and interests.
Speaking of these partnerships, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said, “Cutting through layers of red tape in Washington is one essential piece of our final mission.” The mission is nothing other than — with the votes necessary from Congress — to eliminate the ineffective U.S. Department of Education, which has wasted trillions of dollars without improving student learning.
Continuing, Secretary McMahon explained what lies ahead: “As we partner with these agencies to improve federal programs, we will continue to gather best practices in each state through our 50-state tour, empower local leaders in K-12 education, restore excellence to higher education, and work with Congress to codify these reforms. Together, we will refocus education on students, families, and schools — ensuring federal taxpayer spending is supporting a world-class education system.”
Since January, the Trump Administration has been focused on cutting wasteful spending within the U.S. Department of Education and removing harmful ideologies. For example, just three days after taking office, under the President’s direction, the <a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-takes-action-eliminate-dei">U.S. Department of Education</a> took action to “eliminate harmful Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.” This <a href="https://www.chalkboardnews.com/issues/cultural-issues/article_89d2f95a-da74-11ef-881f-c31173f69a5c.html?seyid=48320">included</a> placing U.S. Department of Education staff leading DEI initiatives on administrative leave, removing more than 200 web pages containing DEI resources that promote or endorse harmful ideological programs, and cutting over $2.5 million of DEI contracts.
<div id="attachment_1002607" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1002607" class="size-large wp-image-1002607" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2205418285-864x576.jpg" alt="US President Donald Trump holds an executive order after signing it alongside US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon (R) in the East Room of the White house in Washington, DC, March 20, 2025. US President Donald Trump will sign an order March 20, 2025 to start dismantling the Department of Education, fulfilling an election campaign pledge and a long-held dream of American conservatives. By law, the Education Department -- created in 1979 -- cannot be shuttered without the approval of Congress, and Republicans do not have the votes to push that through. (Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2205418285-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2205418285-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2205418285-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2205418285.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Credit: Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images.</div>
In March, President Trump signed the “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/improving-education-outcomes-by-empowering-parents-states-and-communities/">Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities</a>” executive order <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-empowers-parents-states-and-communities-to-improve-education-outcomes/">directing</a> Secretary McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”
President Trump <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjnoGgEJvLs">explained</a> and communicated confidence, stating, “We are going to be returning education very simply back to the states where it belongs. And this is a very popular thing to do, but much more importantly, it is a common-sense thing to do, and it is going to work. Absolutely, it is going to work.” Signing the executive order was a foundational first step toward eliminating the department.
Despite the opposition&#8217;s rhetoric, dismantling the Department of Education is about partnering with other federal agencies to improve efficiency, break down bureaucracy, and return education to the states where it rightfully belongs. This will give moms and dads a bigger voice while providing for greater accountability for academic results.
The recent 43-day government shutdown highlighted the lack of need for the federal education department. Just two days before the major IAAs partnership announcement, Secretary McMahon <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2025/11/16/school-funding-trump-dismantle-education-department/87251723007/">wrote</a> in USA Today on November 16, “The Schumer shutdown underlined just how little the Department of Education will be missed. As such, the Trump administration will work to end federal micromanagement of our schools and empower state and local leaders to create high-quality education programs that lead to a rewarding career. We know that the stakes could not be higher.”
These strategic actions under Secretary McMahon’s leadership mark a decisive departure from decades of federal bureaucratic bloat and chart the much-needed path forward toward making good on President Trump’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-empowers-parents-states-and-communities-to-improve-education-outcomes/">executive order</a> commitment to return “power over education to families instead of bureaucracies.”
* * *
Dr. Keri D. Ingraham is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute, Director of the American Center for Transforming Education, and a Senior Fellow at Independent Women’s Forum.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Correction: The title of this article has been updated.
* * *
<h3>Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.</h3>

Trump Takes Steps Toward Dismantling Education Department

Trump Admin Delivers On Promise To Dismantle U.S. Department Of Education

Department of Interior

Department of Labor

Donald Trump

Federal Government

Linda McMahon

Parental Rights in Education

State Department

Teachers

Trump Administration

News on the economy is all over the place, but a solid thread runs through it: many recent American college graduates can’t find jobs. Not only are employers not hiring, they’re laying off left and right. Amazon and United Parcel Service are each cutting more than 14,000 jobs, and the Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/white-collar-jobs-ai-324b749c?st=BLfhsb&amp;reflink=article_email_share">says</a> tens of thousands of white-collar jobs are being cut at other companies.
Yet at the same time, the U.S. immigration system permits thousands of foreign college graduates to enter the job market in direct competition with Americans. Companies employing them don’t have to pay the same payroll taxes as they do when hiring American citizens and permanent residents. This gives foreign students an unfair advantage over American graduates.
The program allowing foreign graduates to work is called Optional Practical Training (OPT). It was <a href="https://cis.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/miano-OPT.pdf">started</a> decades ago by the administrative state through regulation, without any express congressional authorization. Over time, and through collusion between Washington and large employers, OPT was expanded into a pathway for foreign students who completed their studies to remain working for years, or indefinitely, in the U.S. while seeking permanent residence.
Given the brutal job market, the underlying premise for OPT no longer applies. Why allow masses of temporary foreign students to remain in the U.S. and enter the work force right out of college when your own graduates can’t get jobs? The argument for eliminating this program has never been stronger. As Lora Ries <a href="https://wng.org/roundups/weighing-the-price-of-100-000-worker-visas-1759852411#:~:text=Ries%20from%20the%20Heritage%20Foundation,preferred%20hiring%20for%20American%20workers.">argues</a>, we need to “allow American students and American workers a fair shake at applying for jobs, being interviewed for jobs, being hired for jobs, and being retained at their jobs.”
<a href="https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/aug/recent-college-grads-bear-brunt-labor-market-shifts">Unemployment</a> of college graduates aged 23-27 is a few percentage points higher than the national average of 4%. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/business/long-term-unemployment-college-grads.html">long-term unemployment</a> rate (more than 6 months out of work) in the country for that age group is 26%, the highest in three years. And of those college graduates who are employed, over half are working in jobs that <a href="https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/college-degree-jobs-unused-440b2abd">don’t require a degree</a>.
It’s fair to argue that many recent graduates got degrees that are patently useless in a tight market. Anything ending in “studies” comes to mind, or mass-produced degrees from diploma mills whose quality is not respected by employers. But graduates with the vaunted Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math degrees are faring badly, too. Graduate <a href="https://money.com/college-grads-stem-degrees-unemployed/">unemployment</a> for computer engineering graduates was 7.5%, and for physics it was 7.8%.
The reasons for the sudden drop in demand for educated workers are unclear. One cause is that companies are searching for efficiencies and cutting costs in a competitive market. Another major factor is the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Companies are using AI to streamline their business models from top to bottom, which means they are replacing humans with bots.
Labor-saving robots, now supercharged with AI, are a threat to traditional pathways into the labor market for people. <a href="https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/operations/amazon-robotics-robots-fulfillment-center">Amazon</a> has over a million of them doing warehouse and shipping work formerly done by people.
We don’t know how the deployment of AI is going to play out. Maybe it will exponentially increase productivity, and we’ll end up in a cashless, Star Trek world where no one works unless they want to. Maybe the machines will take over and wipe us out, as in the Terminator movies. Or maybe AI will be just one more leap forward, like the printing press, electricity, or the internet, that requires a massive adjustment of our labor force and economy.
Whatever the future holds, it is the primary responsibility of the generations who hold the money and power – that’s mostly Baby Boomers and Generation X – to take care that a pathway still exists for coming generations to get jobs and houses, start families, and have a chance to prosper. Student visas for foreign nationals, the OPT program, and work visas are not set in stone. They can be adjusted or even eliminated when the domestic conditions make them unjustifiable.
Congress should end the OPT program while we figure out how to employ, or retrain, the rising graduate workforce of American citizens. Joseph Edlow, head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2025/05/22/snubbing-trump-immigration-nominee-will-end-student-practical-training/">said</a> he wants to “remove the ability for employment authorizations for F-1 students beyond the time that they are in school.” That’s a good start.
* * *
Simon Hankinson is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center and author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ten-Woke-Commandments-Must-Obey/dp/1680533614">&#8220;The Ten Woke Commandments (You Must Not Obey)&#8221;</a> from Academica Books.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Trump Says Harvard Should Cap Foreign Students At 15%

The College Lie: How Washington’s Visa Loopholes Hand Good Jobs To Foreign Workers

Big Tech

Corporations

foreign students

Technology

Visas

In light of the recent loss of Charlie Kirk, we have to seriously reconsider the level of radical indoctrination in our <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/public-schools">public schools</a> — and not just at the collegiate level. The hostility that fueled such an attack doesn’t appear out of thin air. It begins in classrooms where children are taught to despise their country, question their God-given identity, and see their parents as obstacles rather than protectors. By the time students reach college, the soil has already been prepared by years of quiet but intentional indoctrination. The loss of Charlie should also serve as a rallying cry — a reminder of the price conservatives are paying in this cultural battle and the urgency to confront it head-on.
This is why the fight against gender ideology in our K–12 schools cannot wait. It is not a side issue or a distraction from “real politics.” It is the heart of the cultural crisis America faces. If children are trained from kindergarten to see themselves through the lens of gender theory rather than truth, faith, and family, then we should not be surprised when that worldview matures into radicalism, activism, and, eventually, violence.
For decades, conservatives assumed the worst indoctrination happened on college campuses. That was a mistake. Elementary schools are where the work begins — through school counselors, taxpayer-funded SEL programs, and activist-approved library shelves. Children are introduced to gender confusion long before they ever take an SAT or apply to a university. By the time they arrive on campus, the indoctrination is already deeply rooted.
Florida recognized this and acted decisively. In 2022, the state passed the Parental Rights in Education Act (<a href="https://www.flhouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h1557er.docx&amp;DocumentType=Bill&amp;BillNumber=1557&amp;Session=2022">HB 1557</a>), banning classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. In 2023, lawmakers expanded the law to apply through eighth grade and specifically addressed the use of pronouns. The Florida Board of Education later broadened protections further to cover all K–12 grades. Additional bills like <a href="https://www.flhouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h1069er.docx&amp;DocumentType=Bill&amp;BillNumber=1069&amp;Session=2023">HB 1069</a> reaffirmed that sex is biologically determined at birth, while <a href="https://www.flhouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_s0254er.DOCX&amp;DocumentType=Bill&amp;BillNumber=254&amp;Session=2023">SB 254</a> placed restrictions on gender-related medical interventions for minors.
What made this possible was the partnership of strong leadership at the top — Gov. Ron DeSantis and a conservative state school board — combined with parents pushing relentlessly from the bottom up. Importantly, the state school board did not wait for the legislature to act again; they used their authority to pass stronger policies when they saw the need. This kind of backbone is missing in school boards across the country, but it is the critical piece in reclaiming our public school systems. That partnership is the model every red state must follow if we want to preserve the innocence of children and the authority of parents.
Florida shows that the combination of political courage and grassroots activism can shift the culture of public schools. Parents had been voicing concerns for years about radical curricula, library materials, and counselors undermining parental authority. Instead of dismissing those voices, the leadership of Florida embraced them, amplifying the parents rather than silencing them. That is the blueprint. This bottom-up and top-down unity is what makes Florida distinct — and it is why conservative parents in other states look to Florida as proof that this fight can be won.
On the other end of the spectrum is California, where the guardrails are gone. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the SAFETY Act (<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1955">AB 1955</a>), which allows schools to conceal a child’s new gender identity or pronouns from parents. San Diego schools have run classroom programs with books like <a href="https://www.iwfeatures.com/profile/controversy-erupts-in-california-school-district-over-radical-gender-ideology-in-classrooms/">My Shadow Is Pink</a>, asking fifth graders to guide kindergartners through gender-identity exercises without parental notification. And when teachers object on religious grounds — such as the Oakland kindergarten teacher fired for refusing to use pronouns that violated her conscience — the state sides with ideology, not faith or family.
California also recently lost more than $12 million in federal funding for refusing to strip “radical gender ideology” from its sex-education curriculum. Instead of correcting course, the state doubled down. This is the America our children will inherit if red states fail to act.
The danger in California isn’t limited to its own borders. Policies that begin there often spread nationwide through activist groups, teacher unions, and national curriculum providers. A book that appears in a Los Angeles classroom one year often shows up in a red-state district the next. Without strong protections, even conservative communities will find themselves importing California’s chaos. That is why the example of California should serve as both a warning and a motivator: if red states do not proactively legislate, they will be pulled in the same direction by cultural and institutional pressures.
President Trump recently issued an <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/24/2025-01567/removing-radical-gender-ideology-from-federally-funded-education-programs">executive order</a> directing the removal of radical gender ideology from federally funded education programs. That is an important step — but executive orders are temporary. What one president does, the next can undo. And without strong state-level laws, even Trump’s order cannot stop what continues to happen in liberal states like California, where ideology is embedded in classrooms regardless of federal guidance.
That’s why red states must codify protections into permanent law. And they must add accountability measures with real teeth:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Immediate removal from the classroom if teachers or counselors push gender ideology in violation of the law.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Revocation of teaching licenses so offenders cannot simply move districts or cross state lines to continue indoctrinating children.</li>
</ul>
Parents deserve more than symbolism — they deserve action. Conservative lawmakers must remember that parents are not asking for suggestions or guidelines — they are demanding laws that protect their rights and their children. Laws without accountability are empty. A policy without enforcement is a wish list. If red states want to be serious, they need to back up their words with actions that make the cost of violating parental rights unacceptably high.
Conservative states now have both the opportunity and the obligation to act. Parents are fleeing states like California in search of places where their children can be raised in safety, truth, and faith. Red states must be those safe havens. That means more than political slogans — it means codifying into law the protections families need to preserve faith-based values and the authority of parents.
If conservatives fail here, the exodus from blue states will only accelerate, but families will arrive to find that their “safe haven” is just another battleground. Conservative parents are looking for states where school boards act decisively, legislatures put children first, and governors refuse to bend to woke corporations or activist lobbies. They want leaders who will not only defend but advance the values of family, faith, and freedom.
Red states across the country now have the opportunity and the backing of parents — and if legislators refuse, they should be replaced with leaders who will. The loss of Charlie has only deepened conservatives’ resolve, reminding us of the urgency and the cultural impact of his fight.
The line is clear: pass laws protecting children from gender ideology with real accountability, and pass them first — or prepare to face a reckoning at the ballot box. Our children are not bargaining chips. They are the future of America, and they deserve to be defended. Until states pass binding protections, even Trump’s executive order cannot shield families from the spread of radical ideology in liberal states — making state action urgent and non-negotiable.
* * *
Emily Jones is a mother, community organizer, and candidate for the Alabama State Board of Education. Known as “The Controversial Mom,” she advocates for parental rights, faith-based values, and stronger accountability in public schools.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

MixCollage-25-Sep-2025-09-06-AM-6432

Why Red States Must Crush Gender Ideology In The Classroom

Activists

Elementary Schools

Gender

gender ideology

Transgender

During the summer months, educators across the country flock to professional development conferences, often on the taxpayers’ dime. These events are supposed to sharpen the instructional skills of teachers and equip them with new methods for helping students succeed, addressing real challenges of education, such as declining test scores, reading comprehension, and math proficiency.
But as Defending Education’s analysis of the programming shows, what actually dominates these conferences is not literacy strategies or math interventions.
Instead, the recurring themes are race, social justice, gender, activism, and equity. From English to math, and from history to science, the same ideological buzzwords surface again and again. It’s little wonder parents are concerned, or that the nation has grown more politically divided.
Take the National Education Association (NEA), the country’s largest teachers union. At its <a href="https://web.cvent.com/event/555fe259-c382-4f14-87b0-319c288f9e68/websitePage:83a0a9c7-c495-4fe0-ad95-5eb99de3dbc2">Conference on Racial and Social Justice</a> in Portland this summer, activism, not academics, took center stage.
Unions like the NEA make no effort to hide their contempt for Donald Trump and the values of his supporters. At its annual Representative Assembly, the union <a href="https://www.nea.org/sites/default/files/2025-07/20250706-ratoday-issue-5.pdf">approved business items</a> labeling Trump’s agenda as “fascist” and opposing efforts to eliminate the Department of Education, which it called racist and anti-democratic. In direct response to a Supreme Court decision (Mahmoud v. Taylor) affirming religious parents’ rights to opt their children out of LGBTQ curricula, the NEA allocated $209,000 to push back and expand LGBTQ advocacy in schools. In total, the NEA committed more than $340,000 <a href="https://defendinged.org/incidents/national-education-association-approves-business-items-accusing-president-trump-of-fascism-and-authoritarianism-opposing-supreme-court-ruling-and-not-using-adl-materials/">toward initiatives</a> designed to counter conservative policies.
This union-driven activism is not confined to Portland. Across the country, teachers are being coached to use classrooms as platforms for reshaping opinions on society’s most sensitive issues. Students are not simply taught about history or literature; they are encouraged to become activists themselves. The worldview behind this approach borrows heavily from Marxist theory, framing society as an endless struggle between oppressors and the oppressed. That lens is being embedded into lesson plans, teacher training, and classroom culture, gradually shifting education away from its original purpose — academic instruction — toward political reeducation.
The sessions at NEA’s conference illustrate this shift. One workshop, “Building Narrative Power for Education Justice,” trained teachers to use storytelling to fight “anti-truth” and anti-LGBTQ legislation. Another warned about “White Christian nationalist forces” allegedly exploiting pan-Asian communities. Additional sessions covered “racial battle fatigue,” blurred lines between racism and ableism, and framed climate change as disproportionately harming communities of color, women, and students with disabilities. One even linked the MAGA movement to Jim Crow and Native land theft. Teachers were urged to affirm transgender student identities, disrupt curriculum challenges, and fight political opponents under the banner of education justice.
The conference also promoted the <a href="https://custom.cvent.com/820B5689CD804AEAA83FC39F9FBC8CD3/files/0a702792cebf4a3ea1c9b294c6c985b5.pdf">NEA’s pronoun guide</a>, which encourages teachers to adopt nontraditional pronouns such as ze, zir, zirs, and zirself, and to display their own pronouns as a sign of being a “safe person.” Misgendering, teachers were told, is itself a form of marginalization.
While parents worry about declining math and reading scores, union-sponsored trainings are focused on dismantling ableism, confronting White Christian nationalism, and embedding queer theory into K–12 classrooms. These are not the priorities of most American families, but within the union bubble, they are treated as urgent and non-negotiable. 
And it’s not just the NEA. The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) filled its 2024 <a href="https://s1.goeshow.com/ncte/annual/2024/conference_program_sessions.cfm">conference with sessions</a> such as “Disrupting the Canon with LGBTQIA+ Themes,” “Queer and Trans-Affirming Education,” and “Antiracist Pedagogy Workshop.”
In a perfect example encapsulating how this ideology makes its way into the classroom, one teacher at a school district in New York <a href="https://www.jecsd.org/districtpage.cfm?pageid=3211">reframed Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”</a> as a “cli-fi,” or climate fiction text, using the play as a vehicle to teach climate change.
Math education has not been spared either. <a href="https://www.nctm.org/atlanta2025/">The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’</a> (NCTM) <a href="https://defendinged.org/incidents/the-national-council-of-teachers-of-mathematics-2025-annual-meeting-features-sessions-on-black-feminist-mathematics-pedagogy-antiracist-math-equitable-grading-social-justice-and-whiteness/">2024 conference</a> features sessions on antiracist math, whiteness, and social justice.
One session, <a href="https://www.aievolution.com/ntm2501/index.cfm?do=ev.viewEv&amp;ev=1951">Reflecting on My Whiteness</a>, describes math itself as a “white, patriarchal space” and offers strategies to “confront the oppressive forces of whiteness” and “dismantle inequitable practices” in the classroom. <a href="https://www.aievolution.com/ntm2501/index.cfm?do=ev.viewEv&amp;ev=2046">Another highlights</a> how black women in math education “disrupt systems of oppression” and center “Black Girl Joy.” A third, <a href="https://www.aievolution.com/ntm2501/index.cfm?do=ev.viewEv&amp;ev=1930">Democracy and Data</a>, claims math should be used to advance democratic participation through a social justice lens.
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) follows the same script. At its <a href="https://web.cvent.com/event/b256b940-7874-4081-a4af-34edc50fd735/summary">July conference</a>, sessions focused on “racial harm,” “LGBTQIA+ allyship,” climate activism, and “mass mobilization training.” Teachers were also told to resist curriculum oversight as a political attack. In one session, the AFT admitted the obvious: the pandemic had a “devastating effect” on student literacy.
Yet, the same union that now bemoans literacy loss was a key player in lobbying to keep schools closed during COVID, a decision that fueled the very learning setbacks reflected in the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores. Despite <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Elementary_and_Secondary_School_Emergency_Relief_%28ESSER%29_funding_by_state?utm_">$190 billion</a> in federal COVID-19 relief funds, the data indicate a failing K–12 education system.
Meanwhile, many educators are turning to <a href="https://defendinged.org/ethnicstudies/">ethnic studies</a>, often presented through a victim–oppressor lens. The radical ethnic studies group, Xicanx Institute for Teaching and Organizing (XITO), held a <a href="https://www.xicanxinstitute.org/summer-2025">2024 Summer Institute</a> that <a href="https://www.instagram.com/xitotucson/p/DKk82TWSPMe/">promoted</a> “decolonial popular education” and urged educators to view teaching as a political weapon. Its sessions featured activists tied to <a href="https://www.ethnicstudiespedagogies.org/gallery/07%20-%20TIAHUI%20-%20A%20Decolonial%20Framework.pdf">anti-Western and antisemitic rhetoric</a>, with the explicit goal of uniting street activism and classroom instruction. And yes, school districts are footing the bill with taxpayer dollars for teachers to attend.
The common thread across these trainings is the glorification of victimhood and activism, with teachers encouraged to turn students into activists for leftist causes. Rather than instilling confidence and agency, this mindset risks fostering learned helplessness, where students believe success is unattainable without intervention.
Summer training conferences are less about improving learning outcomes and more about transforming classrooms into engines of political activism — serving unions and activist groups, but leaving behind the very students schools are meant to serve.
* * *
Kendall Tietz is an investigative reporter for Defending Education.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

MixCollage-18-Sep-2025-09-53-AM-6641

The Public School Activist Pipeline: ‘A Joyous Rebellion’

Anti-Racism

Equity

LGBTQ

National Education Association

Menu