It’s a four-letter word. It’s so powerful that our Founders had to weaken its authority from the original design, yet it remains rarely challenged. It’s the president’s most powerful leverage tool: the veto. If Trump wants to succeed in shrinking government where he failed in his first term, he must make this pen his constant companion — and let everyone in Congress know he’s ready to use it.

While a president doesn’t pass legislation or craft the actual budget signed into law, he controls all must-pass legislation by wielding the veto. He can block any budget or program reauthorization bill that lacks spending cuts and structural reforms. Since Reagan left office, only seven presidential vetoes have been successfully overridden. It’s rare for a critical number of a president’s own party — especially if they hold the majority — to defy their leader. That’s where Trump’s leverage lies and why the veto pen matters more than any Cabinet position.

Trump can simply make it clear that any reauthorization or appropriation bill lacking sufficient spending cuts and reforms will be vetoed.

Trump’s veto pen saw little action during his first administration, contributing to runaway spending. In fact, he used his veto pen less frequently than any president in the past 100 years. None of his 10 vetoes came in his first two years, when Republicans controlled Congress. This points to the problem and offers a framework for a more effective term.

The history behind the veto

If we had asked the framers of the Constitution, they would likely have admitted that their master plan might unravel for various reasons. However, they probably didn’t foresee the presidential veto pen becoming a weak tool for achieving Madison’s goal of “ambition … made to counteract ambition,” meant to balance Congress’ strong power.

Before proposing the veto override balance, the Founders worried that giving the president an absolute veto could shift too much power to the executive branch. During the June 4, 1787, debate, James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton proposed a veto power, but Benjamin Franklin argued that governors with veto power often used it for extortion. “No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him,” Franklin complained. Roger Sherman also warned against “enabling any one man to stop the will of the whole,” doubting that “any one man could be found so far above all the rest in wisdom.”

The Convention debated the need for a veto override at length. Initially, framers passed a motion to set the override threshold at three-fourths of both houses of Congress. However, after Roger Sherman, Charles Pinckney, Hugh Williamson, and Elbridge Gerry raised concerns that this high threshold could grant too much power to the president and a small number of allies, the delegates agreed on a two-thirds threshold. They also rejected Madison’s proposal for a “council of revision,” which would have placed the veto in the hands of a joint council of the president and Supreme Court justices, choosing instead to vest this power solely in the president.

The Founders clearly saw the presidential veto as a potent tool, and many feared its abuse. They never anticipated that a president might be reluctant to use it.

Trump’s mandate — and leverage

Let’s be honest: Getting Trump’s priorities through the legislative process will be tedious without leveraging must-pass bills against a veto threat. Republicans will hold a slim three-seat majority in the House, built largely on liberal Republicans from California and New York.

Transformational policies, such as reducing legal immigration, downsizing government programs, overturning the vaccine liability shield, and ending birthright citizenship, would struggle to pass the House. Each targeted program has a constituency of Republicans likely to join Democrats in opposing cuts.

And that’s before facing the Senate, which is filled with RINOs who make House Republicans look like the Founding Fathers. Even on issues that unite Republicans, they’ll fall far short of the 60 votes needed to break a Democratic filibuster.

This is where “must-pass” bills come in. There will be a budget bill in the spring to complete this year’s appropriations and another next fall for fiscal year 2025. A debt ceiling bill will likely come up in late spring. The annual budget reconciliation bill, which can bypass the filibuster for budgetary items, offers a major opportunity. Additionally, an array of reauthorization bills will expire during Trump’s term.

Trump can simply make it clear that any reauthorization or appropriation bill lacking sufficient spending cuts and reforms will be vetoed. That leverage should be wielded and communicated early in the process. During the June 4, 1787, debate over the president’s check on Congress, James Wilson predicted the veto’s power would ensure it was “seldom” used, not because of its weakness but because Congress would avoid passing laws members knew the president would veto.

Benjamin Franklin disdained the veto power, seeing it as a form of extortion. Nevertheless, that’s the power a president holds. If Trump wields the veto pen, the success or failure of his two terms may hinge on this four-letter word that the Founders, with much trepidation, vested in one man.

​Donald trump, 47, Veto, Congress, Budget deal, Constitution, James madison, Benjamin franklin, Opinion & analysis 

The U.S. military has faced declining standards and an overemphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion under the Biden-Harris administration. A 2022 “Woke Warfighters” report, compiled by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), highlighted some of the most egregious examples of how woke ideology has infiltrated and co-opted the military.

The Biden administration’s 2022 National Security Strategy listed “promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion” as a top priority for the U.S. military, placing it above other traditional objectives. Recruitment videos now focus on diversity over service. One particularly controversial animated ad featured a young woman raised by lesbian parents who joins the Army — a sharp departure from the “Be All You Can Be” messaging of the past.

While partisans focus on discrediting a decorated war veteran and strong advocate for service members, the military faces recruitment, retention, and morale crises.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley testified before Congress that he wanted to understand “white rage.” A 2021 diversity and inclusion strategic plan for the Special Forces stated that “SOCOM will implement a ‘Joint Special Operations University Diversity and Inclusion Curriculum’ to emphasize what makes ‘diversity in [Special Operations Forces] an operational imperative.’”

The 18-page report, which received surprisingly little media coverage upon its release, details numerous examples of how such ideology has permeated the military. Pete Hegseth has emerged as a vocal opponent of this approach, vowing to end the Pentagon’s DEI insanity. Naturally, he has become a target of mainstream media outlets and influential Democrats.

Hegseth, a decorated war veteran with years of military service and advocacy for service members, transitioned to media as a popular Fox News host. Despite his credentials, critics dismiss him as merely a “TV host,” relying on audiences not to investigate his distinguished background. Agenda-driven partisans have resurrected unfounded and discredited sexual assault accusations that were resolved years ago. His enemies mischaracterize his tattoos, which reflect his deep Christian faith, as white nationalist symbols.

Hegseth has been vocal for years in opposing the DEI push in the military, arguing that it undermines military effectiveness, weakens the armed forces, and jeopardizes American safety. His stance, along with his comments about combat roles being unsuitable for women, has made him a prime target of the identitarian feminist left. As we approach the post-inauguration confirmation hearings, the smear campaign against Hegseth will undoubtedly escalate.

While partisans focus on discrediting a decorated war veteran and strong advocate for service members, the military faces recruitment, retention, and morale crises. As a decorated Iraq War veteran with a significant social media following, I receive frequent messages from active-duty soldiers. They express frustration with the Biden-Harris administration’s military policies, citing lowered standards that produce weaker troops, DEI initiatives that harm unit cohesion, and a hesitancy among pro-America young men — traditionally the military’s strongest recruits — to enlist.

Hegseth plans to reverse these trends. Partisan Democrat smear campaigns must step aside to allow him to restore the strength and greatness of America’s military.

​Pete hegseth, Donald trump, Dei, Woke pentagon, Defense secretary, Defense department, Diversity equity inclusion, Military, Recruitment, Opinion & analysis 

PALM BEACH, Fla. — Not for the first time, President-elect Donald Trump’s grand estate in southern Florida is now effectively acting as the winter White House, but after his victory against Vice President Kamala Harris, the feeling and energy there are much different than during his first term.

When Trump won on election night in 2016, he was at Trump Tower in New York City. He also held interviews for members of his Cabinet and senior staff at his golf club in Bedminster Township, New Jersey. The advantages that have set Mar-a-Lago apart from these other locations are that the venue is in a deep-red state and has the space to host large events for allies of the incoming president.

The seaside club has experienced a flurry of activity as Trump decides his new Cabinet, with the likes of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy close by. Even years-long adversaries like MSNBC hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski made their way over to the property to have a face-to-face meeting, if only to express their disagreements with Trump’s policies.

“What we did agree on was to restart communications,” Brzezinski said.

‘It’s going to be decisive action. President Trump isn’t going to wait around.’

The Conservative Political Action Conference, headed by Matt and Mercedes Schlapp, hosted its Investors Summit at Mar-a-Lago last week. The event featured speakers such as Argentina President Javier Milei, who remains hopeful that Trump’s win means better days not just for the United States but for the world.

“I believe those of us who believe in freedom must unite to confront this barbarism. We must form an alliance of free nations, custodians of the Western legacy, by establishing new political, commercial, cultural, diplomatic, and military ties. In this regard, CPAC I think has a key role to play,” Milei said. “Because only through the strength and cooperation of free nations can there be global hope for peace and prosperity.”

— (@)

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) told Blaze News he is most looking forward to the new Trump administration going into action on day one to fulfill the campaign’s promises.

“It’s going to be decisive action. President Trump isn’t going to wait around. He knows the information. He knows the players. He’s going to make quick decisions; they’re going to be informed decisions,” Donalds said. “You’re going to get the appropriate response, quick decision-making, and leadership. That’s what I’m looking forward to.”

Donalds says he is not surprised by the renewed attention on Florida in general — not just Mar-a-Lago, since Trump has called on a number of Florida politicians to serve in his administration — because the state is “the best” in the nation.

“No disrespect to the other 49 states, but we’re the best. Florida is a state in transition. … We had similar problems like every other state in the country. Through leadership over time, we were able to change that. And so now, the president is taking some of the best from Florida, and we are going to make America Florida,” Donalds explained, pointing to how Americans are still flocking to Republican-run states and not blue states like California or New York.

National security was one of the main issues Trump ran on, using examples like our continued involvement in foreign wars with no end goal in mind and the nation’s open borders that allowed millions of illegal immigrants to flood the United States.

Erik Prince said Trump’s plan of not only sealing the U.S.-Mexico border but directly taking on the drug cartels and human smuggling operations while pressuring Mexico to be a partner in those missions will be a welcome change after the Biden-Harris administration.

“I think the Mexican president will be well advised to heed Trump’s advice,” Prince said. “America is their key trading partner, and I think Mexico needs America more than America needs Mexico.”

No conference at Mar-a-Lago would be complete without a poolside black-tie gala. CPAC’s gala featured remarks from Trump and from Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Republican National Chairman Michael Whatley. It also featured the author of this article wearing a tie for the first time in a very long time at a formal event in South Florida.

Overall, there was a sense of relief but also excitement for what is to come starting on January 20, 2025. It seemed that while it was good to have a hard-fought victory, the work is only beginning to ensure the voice of the American people is not left unheard.

Whatever happens over the next four years, it is certain that Mar-a-Largo will continue to be the place where the action happens outside the nation’s capital.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Politics 

Jase Robertson loves to hunt ducks, play golf with his brothers, and support the LSU Tigers, but there’s nothing he loves more than seeing people come to know Jesus.

Last week, Jase got to do his favorite thing when he baptized 49ers offensive lineman Colton McKivitz as his new brother in Christ in his own backyard pool.

“This story is incredible,” he says.

McKivitz grew up watching “Duck Dynasty” and going to church, but it wasn’t until recently that he decided to take the final step and get baptized.

The decision was spurred by none other than an episode of the “Unashamed” podcast.

“You guys [were] talking about being baptized and what it meant, and I knew it was time,” McKivitz tells Jase.

Through a mutual friend, McKivitz was connected to Robertson, and before he knew it, he was scheduled to be baptized on a Sunday bye week by his childhood hero.

When Jase asked McKivitz, “What is your confession?” he says the linebacker’s response was “one of the greatest confession speeches [he’s] heard.”

“He basically just shared Jesus and the gospel, and he ended it with, ‘I’m ready for Him to be the Lord of my life,”’ Jase recalls.

And when Jase lowered 6’6”, 300-pound McKivitz into the icy pool water, he knew he would have to rely on the Holy Spirit for the strength to pull him back up.

“That worked well,” he laughs.

However, the baptizing wasn’t over. McKivitz’s father was actually baptized next.

To hear the rest of the story, watch the episode above.

Want more from the Robertsons?

To enjoy more on God, guns, ducks, and inspiring stories of faith and family, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Unashamed, Phil robertson, Jase robertson, Baptism, Bible, Colton mckivitz, San francisco 49ers, Nfl, Blaztev, Blaze media 

A man working as an election judge in Minnesota — home of failed Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz — has been accused of allowing nearly a dozen people to cast ballots even though they were not registered to do so.

Shortly after Election Day, Timothy Michael Scouton, 64, of Nevis, was arrested after auditor Kay Rave could not find voter registrations for 11 new voters who had cast ballots in the Badoura Township Precinct in Hubbard County, about 175 miles north of Minneapolis.

According to one election judge, Scouton told the registrants not to use the forms. According to the other, Scouton insisted to the registrants that they need only sign the back of a book.

Minnesota is one of 23 states that allow same-day voter registration — so long as the prospective voters provide proof of residence, take an oath, and complete an application, according to Bring Me the News. As Scouton was serving as the head election judge for the precinct, he should have had voter registration materials for each of those new voters.

When questioned, Scouton allegedly said he could not locate the proper forms. When Rave found them, Scouton allegedly said he did not use them.

Two days after the election, Rave sent an email to the county attorney, prompting an investigation from the county sheriff’s office.

Investigators then spoke with two other election judges familiar with the situation. According to one of them, Scouton told the registrants not to use the forms. According to the other, Scouton insisted to the registrants that they need only sign the back of a book, the AP reported.

One of those two election judges further claimed that Scouton’s son was also working as an election official involved in same-day voter registration in the same precinct, according to KSTP. The outlet did not indicate that Scouton’s son has been accused of involvement in any of his father’s alleged schemes.

Officials confirmed that Scouton completed required trainings to become a head election judge back in July.

Scouton was later questioned at the sheriff’s office, where he was apprised of his rights but declined to make a statement. He was subsequently arrested and charged with two felonies: accepting the vote of an unregistered voter and neglect of duty by an election official.

The criminal complaint did not offer a possible motive.

Scouton appeared in court on Friday and is now out without bond pending another hearing on January 6, per Minnesota Public Radio News. He faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted.

The office of Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a member of the state’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, demanded a thorough investigation into the allegations, which he described as “extremely serious.”

“Election judges take an oath to administer elections in accordance with the law. A deliberate failure to do so is unlawful and a betrayal of the public trust,” Simon’s office said in a statement, according to the AP.

Scouton did not respond to the outlet’s request for comment, and his attorney declined the request on Saturday.

Legacy media outlets have frequently reported that instances of voter fraud are “rare.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Voter fraud, Same-day registration, Minnesota, Tim walz, Timothy michael scouton, Politics 

Jessica Rosenworcel, the Democrat presently running the Federal Communications Commission, has been
antagonistic to President-elect Donald Trump and dismissive of conservatives’ concerns in recent years, particularly regarding rogue liberal broadcasters, the foreign-funded takeover of hundreds of American radio stations, and other pressing issues pertaining to the regulation of wire, television, radio, cable, and satellite communications in the homeland.

Trump
announced his nominee to replace Rosenworcel Sunday evening: Brendan Carr, currently the senior Republican commissioner on the five-member, Democrat-controlled FCC.

After highlighting that he first nominated Carr to the commission in 2017 and that Carr has been confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate thrice, Trump noted, “Commissioner Carr is a warrior for Free Speech, and has fought against the regulatory Lawfare that has stifled Americans’ Freedoms, and held back our Economy. He will end the regulatory onslaught that has been crippling America’s Job Creators and Innovators, and ensure that the FCC delivers for rural America.”

‘We must dismantle the censorship cartel.’

Prior to serving the independent federal agency as commissioner, the father of three was the FCC’s general counsel, an attorney at Wiley Rein LLP, a clerk for Jude Dennis Shedd on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and an editor for the Catholic University Law Review.

“Thank you, President Trump!” Carr
responded on X. “I am humbled and honored to serve as Chairman of the FCC. Now we get to work.”

Carr, a lead-bellied critic of tech censorship and identity politics, immediately made clear that he was ready to make waves.

“We must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans,”
wrote Carr.

Insinuating that the FCC as currently led and composed has failed in its duties, the commissioner
noted further, “Broadcast media have had the privilege of using a scarce and valuable public resource — our airwaves. In turn, they are required by law to operate in the public interest. When the transition is complete, the FCC will enforce this public interest obligation.”

A FCC under Carr would likely take another look at leftist billionaire George Soros’ takeover of over 200 American radio stations with cash from unvetted foreign nationals. After all, he was a vociferous critic of the takeover while his Democratic peers were virtually silent.

Carr
previously told Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, “Foreign company ownership of U.S. radio stations is not supposed to exceed 25%. But Soros took foreign investment to make his bid, and then he asked the FCC to make an exception to the usual review process.”

The three Democratic appointees on the FCC signed off on both approving the assignment of licenses under the control of a Texas bankruptcy court to the Soros-controlled company Audacy and to sparing the company from complying with Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act, which prohibits foreign owners from having a stake in a radio station license exceeding 25%.

“Never before has the Commission voted to approve the transfer of a broadcast license — let alone the transfer of broadcast licenses for over 200 radio stations across more than 40 markets — without following the requirements and procedures codified in federal law,” Carr
said in his dissenting statement. “Not once.”

A Carr-led FCC might not be so willing to look the other way.

On Sunday, Carr indicated that in addition to fulfilling its obligations to the public, his FCC would give the boot to the racist ideology that has taken hold at the institution in recent years.

“The FCC’s most recent budget request said that promoting DEI was the agency’s second highest strategic goal,”
wrote Carr. “Starting next year, the FCC will end its promotion of DEI.”

— (@)

Rather than obsessing over Americans’ immutable characteristics, Carr indicated in Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership” what the commission should instead be focused on:

“Reining in Big Tech,
Promoting national security,
Unleashing economic prosperity, and
Ensuring FCC accountability and good governance.”

According to Carr, reining in Big Tech would require the elimination of its immunities that courts added to Section 230; the imposition of transparency rules on tech giants like Google and Facebook; support for legislation that ensures internet companies “no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining their Section 230 protections”; and Big Tech companies to pay their “fair share” into the Universal Service Fund.

Tackling tech censorship appears to be a matter of critical importance to Carr.

‘Carr will be an outstanding FCC Chairman.’

Days prior to Trump’s announcement, Carr
penned a letter to the top executives at several social media companies, putting them on notice for their collusion with the “Orwellian” organization NewsGuard, which he noted leveraged its partnerships with advertising agencies “to effectively censor targeted outlets” — including Blaze Media.

“Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft & others have played central roles in the censorship cartel. The Orwellian named NewsGuard along with ‘fact checking’ groups & ad agencies helped enforce one-sided narratives. The censorship cartel must be dismantled,”
tweeted the commissioner.

Where national security is concerned, Carr seeks to curb foreign influence, subterfuge, and sabotage through and on various communications systems and social media platforms, especially TikTok. He appears to be focused primarily on countering the threats posed by communist China.

Carr, who has in recent days and months
echoed Argentine President Javier Milei and Trump’s proposed Department of Government Efficiency leaders, also stressed the importance of ending the wasteful spending policies pursued by the Biden-Harris administration and of maximizing efficiency.

Following Trump’s landslide re-election earlier this month, Patrick Yoes, president of the National Fraternal Order of Police, insisted that Carr was the best choice for the job,
writing:

Mr. Carr has more than 20 years of private and public sector expertise in communications and technology policy as well as a deep institutional knowledge of the FCC. As Commissioner, he is known as ‘Mr. 5G’ for his passionate commitment to cutting through the bureaucratic red tape to get 5G technology into the marketplace. He was instrumental in the FCC’s recent action to authorize the use of the 4.9 GHz spectrum within the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN) and granting a nationwide license to the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to administer it.

Yoes added that “Carr will be an outstanding FCC Chairman.”

The chairman nominated by the previous president customarily resigns when a new commander in chief of a different political party takes power; however, this is apparently not required by law. Time will see whether Rosenworcel will leave the position kicking and screaming.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Fcc, Federal communications commission, Brendan carr, Carr, Donald trump, Trump, President trump, Winning, Conservative, Regulation, Media, Radio, Television, Broadcast license, Politics 

After the 2020 election, many establishment media voices claimed Donald Trump’s 2016 victory was a fluke, suggesting Americans “came to their senses” in the next election. But the outcome of the 2024 election validated what many on the right have argued for years: Trump and his positions reflect the desires of a majority of voters rather than fringe views.

Yet Trump’s win did not affirm every right-wing talking point. Immigration restrictionists, who rallied around Trump early in his 2016 campaign, have argued that mass immigration, both legal and illegal, would push the country to the left. Their reasoning is based on the fact that most nonwhite immigrant groups in the United States tend to favor the Democratic Party over Republicans.

America doesn’t need to become more like the Third World.

The 2024 election results throw a monkey wrench in the works. While whites still make up most (84%) of GOP voters and support the GOP at a higher rate (56%) than any other group, Trump made significant inroads with some minority groups. He won 42% of the Latino vote, and among Latino men, his support climbed to 47%.

This election isn’t the first in which Trump increased his share of the Latino vote. In 2016, 28% of Latinos voted Republican; by 2020, that figure rose to 38%. Now, with Trump receiving 42% of the Hispanic vote, some have begun reconsidering the argument that mass immigration primarily benefits the Democratic Party.

Two key factors shape this shift.

First, this argument remains valid until large immigrant groups consistently vote Republican. Trump gained ground with Asians in this election, another significant immigrant group, increasing his share from 28% in 2020 to 38% this year. Although exit polls do not detail Indian-American voting patterns, the 2024 Indian American Attitudes Survey shows Indian-American support for Trump increased from 22% in 2020 to 31%.

The rightward shift among America’s largest immigrant groups signals an encouraging trend. Regardless of one’s stance on demographic change — personally, I believe our demographics were just fine around the time Hart-Cellar passed in 1965 — legal immigrants have become an integral part of the electorate. Encouraging them to support economic freedom, meritocracy, non-interventionism, and immigration restriction benefits everyone.

Rather than refuting immigration restrictionism, this shift proves that restricting immigration provides a solid foundation for building a broad right-wing coalition. Staving off future demographic changes doesn’t require hard-line white nationalism; in fact, a more inclusive approach appears more effective in countering the Great Replacement narrative. Ironic, isn’t it?

As mentioned, America’s largest immigrant groups continue voting primarily Democrat, supporting the argument that voting trends still favor immigration restriction. But let’s imagine a scenario where these trends shift — where, one day in the not-too-distant future, Hispanics, Indians, and East Asians start voting majority Republican.

That outcome may be unlikely any time soon. But for argument’s sake, let’s consider it.

Even under such circumstances, strong reasons for supporting immigration restriction remain. Mass immigration suppresses Americans’ wages, replaces skilled American workers with foreign labor, reduces social trust, erodes social capital, and, depending on the origin, lowers the nation’s average IQ — not exactly a desirable outcome.

Mass immigration threatens to permanently erase the America we know and love. While immigrants arriving in smaller numbers often assimilate, those coming in the millions are more likely to retain the attitudes and beliefs of their home countries, causing America to increasingly resemble those places.

Personally, I don’t think America needs to become more like the Third World.

Fortunately, the 2024 election results have dispelled another argument used against immigration restrictionists: that running on an immigration restriction platform will alienate minority voters, specifically Latinos.

This argument influenced the GOP’s shift away from the Southern strategy, which appealed to disaffected white working-class voters, toward a more pro-diversity approach.

George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign exemplified this shift. In a speech to La Raza, he pledged $100 million to expedite permanent residency applications, saying, “I like to fight that stereotype that sometimes we don’t have the corazon necessary to hear the voices of people from all political parties and all walks of life.” His campaign even ran ads on Spanish-speaking media.

Bush’s pro-immigration, pro-diversity campaign only earned him 35% of the Latino vote — considerably less than Trump received this year running on mass deportations. The fact that Trump managed to win record Latino support while pursuing something resembling the Southern strategy should show how nonsensical it was for Republicans to tack left on immigration in the attempt to appeal to those voters.

Whether the GOP hits a ceiling among these minority voters remains to be seen. But even if immigrant groups continue moving rightward, we should remember that the case against mass immigration ultimately transcends the voting trends argument.

After decades of reckless immigration policy, it is time for a moratorium.

​2024 presidential election, Donald trump, Latino voters, Republicans, Latinos, Latinx, Deportation, Immigration, Illegal immigration, Sovereignty, Hart-cellar, La raza, George w bush, Opinion & analysis 

Democratic operatives launched an initiative in 2022 effectively aimed at
dissuading lawyers from taking and aiding clients whose success could potentially diminish leftist political power.

Citing the need to “protect democracy,” the 65 Project has so far sought to make examples of those attorneys who helped Trump allies and supporters challenge the
2020 election results, despite recognizing that some attorneys may not actually have violated the legal profession’s ethical rules.

The 65 Project — which
made clear in September that it intends to keep hounding conservative lawyers — has not only publicly smeared accomplished attorneys but filed over 85 bar complaints in hopes of ruining their careers, with some success. Influence Watch highlighted that the outfit has not similarly bothered to target any of those Democratic-aligned lawyers who have challenged elections or election laws in recent years.

Despite the partisan outfit’s supposedly noble aims, its initiative ultimately appears oriented toward depriving political opponents of effective legal representation, as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment.

There may, however, be a reckoning on the horizon.

America First Legal, run by Stephen Miller, President-elect Donald Trump’s new White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, punched back late last month with bar complaints of its own — against both the managing director of the 65 Project and former Jan. 6 committee member Liz Cheney, signaling the possibility of mutual combat and/or mutually assured destruction.

Blaze News has explored the fallout of the 65 Project’s lawfare as well as its unintended consequences, not the least of which is balkanization in the legal world and the likelihood of retribution targeting lawyers of another stripe.

What is the 65 Project?

In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, attorneys across the country were involved in efforts to challenge the results, citing
apparent irregularities. Trump allies and supporters filed over 60 lawsuits, which NBC News indicated were championed by solo practitioners and state attorneys general alike.

The 65 Project, named after one total of such lawsuits, was apparently cooked up by Democratic operative
Melissa Moss, a former Democratic National Committee finance director who served in the Clinton administration. The initiative was incubated within LawWorks, a “fiscally sponsored project” of the D.C.-based Franklin Education Forum whose principal officer, as of 2022, was Media Matters founder David Brock, an early adviser for the 65 Project.

Extra to working with billionaire George Soros and other leftists to attack Republicans and
founding a super PAC that spent roughly $85 million on Democrats in the 2020 election, Brock previously did his best in hopes of getting Hillary Clinton elected in 2016. After this failed, Brock’s buddy later challenged the results and claimed that Trump was an illegitimate president — without consequence.

‘It’s a tactic.’

Other early advisers for the 65 Project included former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle; the American Bar Association’s first woman president, Roberta Cooper Ramo; Christine Durham, a Democratic appointee who served on the Utah Supreme Court; and former Republican Paul Rosenzweig, a Department of Homeland Security official in the George W. Bush administration.

The outfit is presently run by Michael Teter, with Moss in an advisory role. Teter
previously worked as campaign manager for former Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl (Wisc.), as Wisconsin field director for former climate czar John Kerry’s failed presidential campaign, and as deputy finance director for the California Democratic Party.

According to its website, the 65 Project is a

bi-partisan effort to protect democracy and preserve the rule of law by deterring future attacks on our electoral system. We are holding accountable Big Lie Lawyers who bring fraudulent and malicious lawsuits to overturn legitimate election results, and working with bar associations to revitalize the disciplinary process so that lawyers, including public officials, who subvert democracy will be punished.

Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post writer who
got caught lying about Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and recently likened Trump’s landslide 2024 victory to Adolf Hitler taking power, was among the radicals who celebrated the initiative in early 2022, writing, “The 65Project’s announcement should come as a relief to democracy defenders who think many lawyers failed miserably in their professional obligations.”

“If the bar complaints deter lawyers from helping Trump or other politicians in a future insurrection, the 65Project’s effort will have achieved some much-needed democratic hygiene,” added Rubin.

Blaze News reached out to the 65 Project for comment but did not receive a response by deadline.

The targets (so far)

The 65 Project has filed ethics complaints against scores of attorneys, including Harvard University law professor emeritus
Alan Dershowitz; Trump attorney Boris Epshteyn; John Eastman, the founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; Mississippi’s first female attorney general, Lynn Fitch; Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall; West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey; Arkansas Lt. Governor Leslie Rutledge; and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.).

Dr. David J. Luban, professor of law and philosophy at Georgetown Law, told Blaze News that the 65 Project complaints “seem to be based on four rules: It’s unethical to file frivolous lawsuits; to make false statements of facts to courts; to make false statements of fact to third parties; and the all-purpose prohibition on conduct involving ‘dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.'”

Dershowitz, who helped advance the case
Lake v. Hobbs, which called for the 2022 Arizona governor’s election to be overturned, told USA Today last year, “It’s a tactic.”

“People will not take on Trump-related cases,” said Dershowitz. “That’s the intention, and that’s the result.”

‘They did file a flagrantly and maliciously false bar complaint against me.’

Harry W. MacDougald and Daniel J. Hartman were among those attorneys targeted by the Democrat-aligned group.

In February 2023, the 65 Project
pressed the State Bar of Georgia to investigate MacDougald’s work in Pearson v. Kemp and Wood V. Raffensperger and to make an example of him.

MacDougald told Blaze News that while ultimately thwarted, the attack on his livelihood nevertheless proved impactful.

“Yes, they did file a flagrantly and maliciously false bar complaint against me, which resulted in false and defamatory publicity against me,” said MacDougald, a managing partner at Caldwell, Carlson, Elliott & DeLoach. “The complaint progressed to the investigative phase and was dismissed by the State Disciplinary Board in August of this year. It is still on their website to this day.”

“Especially shameful are the members of the 65 Project’s Advisory Board, who are all extremely prominent lawyers,” said MacDougald, alluding to Durham, Ramo, and Rosenzweig, as well as to
past advisory board members Stuart Gerson, a former Clinton Justice Department official, and Renee Knake Jefferson, a Democrat serving on the Michigan State University Board of Trustees.

“Even if they did not have personal knowledge of the falsity of the allegations made against me and others, they lent their imprimatur to the false and defamatory allegations made by the 65 Project against me and others and to the wrongful and abusive purposes of the entire project,” added MacDougald.

Last year, the 65 Project also
requested that the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission investigate Hartman for allegedly violating the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. The project accused Hartman of presenting frivolous claims, making false statements of law and fact, and burdening state and county officials.

Hartman represented the Macomb County Republican Party, voters Jason Ickes and Ken Beyer, and others when they
sued Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) and Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) in 2022, requesting that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan decertify the state’s 2020 presidential election result, recall Biden’s presidential electors, and rerun the election.

The lawsuit alleged that the electronic voting system used by Michigan in the election was not certified or accredited in accordance with
state law and that the lab used to certified the systems was not lawfully authorized to perform testing.

Hartman also acted as counsel for the plaintiffs in
Karamo et al. v. Janice Winfrey, Detroit City Clerk, who sought to halt the use of absentee ballots that are obtained without identification.

When pressed about his targeting by the 65 Project, the Michigan lawyer told Blaze News that he “was sanctioned unjustly” and was “out-resourced 1,000 to 1.”

Although “shunned by some,” Hartman said he has also been “silently applauded by many.”

Taking pieces off the board

Bruce Green, a professor at Fordham Law School, is among the legal experts who raised concerns about the 65 Project and the public nature of its witch hunts.

“That’s basically designed to embarrass these lawyers, and that may have the effect of discouraging lawyers from engaging in politically involved work, even if they’re playing by the rules, because a group like this can misconstrue what they’re doing and embarrass them,” Green
told CNN in 2022.

‘You’re threatening their livelihood.’

MacDougald told Blaze News that Green’s assessment was “100% correct and was in fact the explicitly stated purpose of the 65 Project.”

David Brock
indicated at the outset that the goal was to “not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firm.”

“I think the littler fish are probably more vulnerable to what we’re doing,” Brock told Axios. “You’re threatening their livelihood.”

Hartman also confirmed that the 65 Project has enjoyed some success in this regard.

“Many have told me that it was not worth the risk to participate in election law cases,” Hartman told Blaze News. “They cite the reasons of family, career, or wealth at stake but most often plead lack of time or lack of training.”

Luban does not share Green’s concern. The Georgetown professor struck a contrast between those election-fraud cases where the “complaints simply cut and pasted a bunch of conspiracy theories or affidavits from people who were mad about the 2020 election but had no firsthand evidence of fraud” or “were based on outlandish legal theories” on the one hand, and “serious challenges to state election law, which were not frivolous and involved no dishonesty” on the other hand.

Luban suggested that in the case of the former, the “bar
ought to discipline those lawyers, who were clearly abusing the court system for political reasons.”

“I don’t share Bruce Green’s worry that disciplining them will chill advocacy,” said Luban. “Abusing the legal system to attack a valid election on frivolous or dishonest grounds is conduct that needs to be deterred.”

The trouble, at least for Green, is that in some cases, it may be difficult even for a reasonable lawyer to distinguish between a frivolous claim and a legitimate claim.

“The line between a weak claim or a losing claim on the one hand and a frivolous one on the other is sometimes not so clear,” Green
told USA Today. “You have to have some facts to support your claim, and you have to have some legal arguments that aren’t ridiculous.”

It appears that politically minded actors are keen to hold certain attorneys to a different standard as a mode of lawfare.

When asked whether the legal professional has ever seen anything like this coordinated effort to ruin attorneys professionally and financially, Harman answered in the affirmative, noting, “There have been various instances in American history where lawyers or the legal profession as a whole have been attacked, criticized, or targeted. Some of these are rooted in political or social movements, while others are more individual instances.”

Hartman provided the following examples:

“McCarthy era (1950s): During the Red Scare, lawyers who defended individuals accused of being communists or who advocated for civil rights were often labeled as ‘un-American.’ Some lawyers faced investigations, disbarment, or imprisonment. This era was marked by an overall suspicion of those who defended the constitutional rights of accused persons.”
“Civil rights era: Lawyers advocating for civil rights, particularly those representing black Americans or civil rights organizations like the NAACP, often faced significant hostility and even violence. Figures like [former Supreme Court Justice] Thurgood Marshall and other attorneys who represented civil rights activists were sometimes attacked or threatened, especially in the South.”
“Attacks on defense attorneys representing unpopular clients: Throughout history, defense attorneys representing controversial or unpopular clients (such as those accused of terrorism, murder, or other heinous crimes) have faced public backlash, threats, and sometimes physical violence. In recent years, lawyers representing individuals accused of terrorism or hate crimes have sometimes faced public outrage, as well as harassment online or in person.”
“Ongoing anti-lawyer sentiments and ‘tort reform’: There has been consistent criticism of the legal profession, particularly personal injury lawyers, who are often depicted as promoting ‘frivolous lawsuits.’ This has led to various tort reform movements aimed at limiting certain types of lawsuits. While not physical attacks, these movements often carry negative portrayals of lawyers in political and media narratives.”
“Internet and social media harassment: In recent years, some high-profile lawyers, especially those involved in political cases or defending controversial figures, have been harassed or doxxed online. This type of harassment can extend to threats against the lawyers and their families.”

MacDougald similarly alluded to retaliation efforts against lawyers “in our history such as in the Antebellum or Red Scare or labor unrest periods,” but suggested that earlier attacks were likely “more organic and ad hoc.”

“I doubt that any of the prior campaigns were organized and funded to the same extent as the 65 Project, but I don’t actually know the history so I cannot say for sure,” said MacDougald.

‘Some people are not worthy of representation.’

“While not systemic or government-led, these examples show that attacks, harassment, and criticism directed at lawyers do occur in America, often tied to the cases they take or the issues they represent,” said Hartman.

In terms of the 65 Project, he noted that he has seen “the campaign take out several good lawyers.”

“The 65 Project has effectively kept many lawyers on the sideline who have decided the cost is too high and the likelihood of success is too low,” added Hartman.

Genie is out of the bottle

When asked whether it is possible to put the genie back in the bottle or whether there will be more 65 Project-style complaints in the future, Luban told Blaze News, “We already have: America First Legal has filed an ethics complaint against the head of the 65 Project. They have also filed an ethics complaint against Liz Cheney, for having talked with Cassidy Hutchinson without clearing it with her lawyer, [Stefan] Passantino.”

AFL filed a
bar complaint against Liz Cheney with the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel on Oct. 21, alleging that she violated the D.C. Bar Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2. by communicating with former deputy White House counsel Stefan Passantino’s client, Cassidy Hutchinson, without his knowledge or approval.

The conservative nonprofit then
filed a bar complaint against Teter one week later on behalf of Passantino, suggesting that the Utah State Bar should open an investigation into whether the 65 Project:

violated Rule 8.4 of the Utah Rules of Professional conduct by “engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by seeking to punish lawyers associated with a single client”;
violated Rule 301 of the rules governing the Utah State Bar by “abusing the attorney grievance process to create a ‘culture of deterrence’ and ascribing class-wide misconduct against anyone who seeks to represent President Donald J. Trump and by seeking sanctions for an improper purpose”; and
engaged in conduct “contrary to the standards of professionalism and civility envisioned by the Rules of Professional Conduct.”

When announcing the complaint, AFL
noted, “Mr. Passantino and the other attorneys attacked by Mr. Teter and other, similarly motivated groups sought to represent their clients in the face of widespread condemnation both inside and outside of the legal profession. They embody the highest ideal of the legal profession: that, in our system, everyone is entitled to legal representation.”

“Mr. Teter’s boilerplate complaints appear to exhibit a fundamental lack of professionalism toward his fellow lawyers and an extreme disdain for President Trump and his associates,” continued the conservative nonprofit. “His underlying message is clear: Some people are not worthy of representation, and those who dare to represent them will be punished.”

Gene Hamilton, AFL executive director, said in a statement:

For too long, “lawfare” like that undertaken by the 65 Project and other, similarly motivated groups has chilled attorneys across the country from representing clients or advancing certain lawful positions for those clients. Seeking the personal destruction and financial ruin of another lawyer — simply because of the client he represented or the cause he took up — runs counter to not only the letter and spirit of the law governing the activities of lawyers, but is completely contrary to the way we conduct ourselves in a free society. We seek a return to a world in which lawyers can be lawyers, zealously advocate for their clients, and strive for a better future without fear of harassment or intimidation simply because of the clients or causes they take up. The abuses of the system must stop.

Professor Luban did not remark on the complaint against Teter but noted that the complaint against Cheney “is completely frivolous and dishonest. The no-contact rule only applies to lawyers who are representing a client, which Cheney was not.”

Blaze News reached out to AFL for comment but did not receive a comment by deadline.

Regardless of whether these complaints prove successful, it appears that elements of the right are now willing to respond in kind to the 65 Project and similar initiatives.

“Lawfare and professional attacks will continue,” Hartman told Blaze News.

The prospect of mutual combat might make partisans think twice about seeking the strategic ruination of attorneys, however the remedy may lay elsewhere.

Blaze News senior editor and podcast host Daniel Horowitz of “Conservative Review” told Blaze News, “We need bar reform badly. We cannot continue to have what is essentially a private left-wing fiefdom wielding quasi-governmental authority over the legal profession and the judicial branch of government itself.”

Horowitz further recommended that red states “become sanctuaries for those attorneys who have been targeted prima facie because of their worldview and not because of unethical behavior.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Lawfare, 65 project, Daniel hartman, Eastman, Trump, Donald trump, David brock, Media matters, Brock, Politics, Blaze news investigates, T3 

Maryland’s new education chief, Carey Wright, an old-school champion of rigorous standards, is pushing back against efforts in other states to boost test scores by essentially lowering their expectations of students.

States, including Oklahoma and Wisconsin, are making it easier for students to demonstrate on annual assessments that they are proficient in math and English after a decade of declining test scores nationwide. By redesigning the assessments and lowering the so-called “cut scores” that separate achievement levels such as basic, proficient, and advanced, several states have recently posted dramatic increases in proficiency, a key indicator of school quality.

‘If you don’t set high expectations, you’re never going to achieve the kinds of goals that you want to achieve. And in our business, it’s called student learning.’

Wright warns that lowering the bar on proficiency can create the public impression that schools are improving and students are learning more when, in fact, that’s not the case.

“You can make yourself look better to the public by lowering your cut scores,” Wright, the Maryland state superintendent of schools, told RealClearInvestigations in an interview. “But then you are not really measuring proficiency. My position is no, no, no. Parents and teachers need to know if their children are proficient or not.”

As most public schools continue to deal with the related crises of learning loss and chronic absenteeism years after COVID-19, Wright says now is the worst time to lower expectations of students, which can stifle the impetus to improve. In other moves to accommodate struggling students, districts and states have reduced graduation requirements and inflated grades with policies that ban failing marks. The best evidence comes from studies in Washington and North Carolina showing that grades have held steady at their pre-pandemic levels even though students are learning much less.

“With grades and assessments, the education system seems to be sleepwalking into a policy of ratcheting expectations down to better reflect what today’s students can do, rather than doubling efforts to help get students to where they need to be,” said Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which argues for high academic standards.

Wright, who took over Maryland schools this summer, is refusing to backpedal on standards in a state that plunged from the top to the bottom in U.S. performance over the last decade. The superintendent says she aims to improve Maryland’s declining proficiency rates the hard way by making academic standards more rigorous in all content areas. As students learn more in class, the theory goes, they should become more proficient on state tests.

But a strategy that asks more of teachers and students is never an easy lift in districts that often resist top-down calls for change. Without direct control over school districts run by local boards, state superintendents like Wright must depend on the ability to inspire principals and teachers to follow their lead and meet inconvenient truths head-on.

Wright has done it before. As the state superintendent in Mississippi a decade ago, she collaborated closely with districts in lifting content standards and provided support to completely revamp literacy instruction in what was the worst-performing state in the union. Student proficiency soared without lowering cut scores. Educators called it the “Mississippi Miracle.”

“If you set the bar low, that’s all you are going to get,” Wright said. “But if you set the bar high for students, and support teachers and leaders, it’s doable.”

Lowering cut scores, boosting proficiency

Each state controls its own definition of proficiency and how students can achieve the all-important marker of academic success. The state sets its own content standards that detail what students need to know in each grade, writes its own tests to determine if they are proficient, and devises its own cut scores.

The undertaking is more art than science. There is no accepted single definition of what makes a student proficient. States mostly aim for grade-level proficiency, or what the average student can do, based on their own content standards. A handful of states shoot higher, approaching a more rigorous definition of proficiency spelled out by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as the Nation’s Report Card.

By moving the bar on tests and cut scores, education officials have instantly raised or lowered proficiency rates. Over the years, some states have added enough rigor to allow only a third of students to show proficiency while others have reduced it to ensure that the vast majority perform well, Marianne Perie, who has helped more than a dozen states develop assessment methods, told the New York Board of Regents last year.

Today, states are lowering the bar and lifting proficiency rates. “Oklahoma just lowered their cut scores and Wisconsin is another one that ended up with less rigorous cut scores,” Perie told RCI. “If more kids are proficient this year compared with the previous years, it indicates that cut scores are less rigorous or that kids learned a lot more over the last year.”

High standards fall in Wisconsin

Wisconsin, like most states, has experienced a big drop in proficiency. In 2017, 44% of public school students were deemed proficient in English. That percentage fell in 2018 and 2019 and then plunged in the early years of the pandemic before recovering a bit to 39% in 2023.

This year, Wisconsin rolled out its new test and cut scores. State Superintendent Jill Underly was transparent about the changes, explaining in October that the redesign was meant to fix a problem created a decade ago when Wisconsin and other states aligned their cut scores to an “extremely high” level used by NAEP, reducing Wisconsin’s proficiency rate in the years that followed. Underly wrote that Wisconsin’s new grade-level cut scores better reflect the actual proficiency of students, making results easier for families to understand.

What families saw was a dramatic boost in English proficiency to 48% this year — a nine percentage-point gain over 2023 — due to assessment changes that had nothing to do with classroom learning.

To be sure, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction didn’t tout the 2024 results. It announced that they shouldn’t be compared to prior years since testing methods changed. Still, families who don’t follow the fine print of assessments may be left with the impression that Wisconsin schools are performing much better this year.

Paul Peterson, a prominent Harvard professor of education policy who has tracked changes to state proficiency levels, says politics seems to be a driver in the lowering of testing rigor.

“Student performance is falling so I would imagine the pressure on states to rethink standards must be considerable,” Peterson said. “Officials want to show that they are spending the public’s dollar well, and that students are learning.”

No notice in Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, a similar assessment revamp unfolded this summer but with a controversial twist: State leaders in Oklahoma didn’t inform school districts or families that they had lowered the bar before releasing the test results in August, according to reports in the local media.

When school districts saw the results, principals and teachers were in disbelief over the huge increase in performance. In fourth grade English, for instance, 47% of students reached proficiency — an extraordinary 23% jump compared to 2023.

Later in August, State Superintendent Ryan Walters, a conservative who has been under fire for insisting that public schools teach the Bible, admitted that the state changed its assessment regime without publicly announcing it. Republican state lawmakers issued a statement criticizing Walters for “putting a false narrative out there” about a jump in test scores. Oklahoma’s Department of Education didn’t respond to a request from RCI for comment.

“I believe in transparency and communication,” said Perie, the testing expert. “Oklahoma was the only state where it seemed like they were hiding the changes.”

New York denies lower standards

As in Wisconsin and Oklahoma, New York’s retooled content standards, assessments, and scoring also produced higher proficiency rates.

A New York education official told RCI that the goal was to determine what should be expected of today’s students and how to evaluate their proficiency in various subjects using the new content standards. New York saw a dramatic 13% increase in math proficiency and a small boost in English in 2023, the year the changes were implemented.

Officials in New York and Wisconsin are adamant that the updated assessments don’t amount to a lowering of academic standards even though proficiency rates jumped. The New York official added that while several factors impact student achievement from year to year, instruction is one of the most highly related attributes.

“It is incorrect and irresponsible to derive from this that the standards have been lowered,” the official said in an email.

Petrilli of the Fordham Institute calls such explanations from state officials doublespeak. “By definition these states are lowering standards for proficiency because it’s easier for students to meet the standard than it was before,” he said.

Wright’s ‘Mississippi Miracle’

Education experts say Wright’s tenure as the state superintendent in Mississippi offers a lesson to states struggling with low proficiency rates today: Even in the worst of times, Wright showed, states can raise their expectations of students and get results.

When Wright took over Mississippi schools in 2013, they were at the very bottom in performance nationally. A mere 21% of fourth graders were proficient in reading, according to NAEP. Educators in the South would say, “At least we are not as bad as Mississippi.”

The decade before the pandemic was a time of rising expectations in public education. With Wright in charge, Mississippi joined half of the states in raising the bar for fourth grade reading proficiency between 2013 and 2019.

The lifting of expectations was relatively easy. It’s policymaking. The tough part for state superintendents was implementing changes in schools to reach those higher goals. For the most part, the higher bars didn’t translate into higher levels of proficiency by 2017, according to research by Daniel Hamlin at the University of Oklahoma and Harvard’s Peterson.

There are only theories as to why: After the Great Recession of 2009, school funding declined. The Obama administration relaxed federal accountability measures put in place by President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind reform of 2002. The advent of smartphones became a major distraction for students.

Mississippi was a notable exception. Its fourth grade reading proficiency jumped by 11 percentage points from 2013 to 2019, rising to a top-20 performer in the United States, according to NAEP. In math, the increase was equally impressive.

Wright got results the old-fashioned way, with a tenacious focus on improving proficiency for all students, including those living in poverty, says Washington Cole, then her chief of staff and now a district superintendent in Mississippi. To get there, Wright rolled out a literacy program that was backed by decades of research and, crucially, provided teachers and administrators with extensive training in the model and sent coaches into the lowest-performing schools. “The professional development was a huge part of it,” Wright said.

Wright also toughened the district grading system that provided public accountability. When districts earned an “A” for performance, they were publicly celebrated by community members and lawmakers, adding to the incentives for other districts to improve. Over a decade, Wright’s team transformed Mississippi into an unlikely national K-12 success story.

“Dr. Wright set high expectations and her hard work and determination were very infectious with everyone. She was amazing,” Cole said. “I have no doubt that she will do the same thing in Maryland.”

Maryland tries a turnaround

Wright has her work cut out for her. After a decade of decline in Maryland, 48% of students are proficient in English and 24% in math.

In Baltimore, where almost all students are black or Latino, the numbers are tragically low. Only 6% of middle and high schoolers are proficient in math. More than 40% of Baltimore students were chronically absent last year, according to a district estimate, well above the national average. Students can’t learn if they don’t show up.

None of this seems to faze Wright, who assumed permanent leadership of Maryland’s schools in July. In returning to her native state, where she earned her doctorate in education and began her career as a teacher and administrator, Wright has wasted no time in setting a very ambitious goal.

“In the next three years we are expecting a five-percentage point increase in proficiency each year in English and math,” she said.

To achieve that goal, Wright appointed a task force of teachers, leaders, experts, and parents to quickly recommend changes to the state’s accountability system, which she discovered painted a very rosy picture for the public. It was giving high marks to three-quarters of all schools despite their low proficiency scores. Wright wants the new system to provide school leaders with clearer measurements on a range of topics, such as the pace of student growth and graduation rates, so they can target their weak areas for improvement.

“Superintendents take a lot of pride in their ratings,” Wright said. “They want to be that district that gets recognized.”

Major changes are also coming to classrooms. Wright’s new early literacy policy, which won state board approval in October, details expectations for instruction based on the science of reading and teacher training in an attempt to lift test scores that have fallen to 41st in the country.

The biggest change in policy puts an end to social promotion. Districts with parental consent will be able to hold back third graders who don’t meet literacy standards rather than promote them to fourth grade, where they will continue to struggle to read, hampering their future performance. It’s the kind of bold change that Wright wasn’t hesitant to push despite opposition from some board members and families concerned about the impact on disadvantaged students.

It worked for Wright in Mississippi, producing a very large increase in reading performance by sixth grade, according to researchers.

“Putting a stake in the ground and saying we are not just going to move kids along if they haven’t learned to read by grade 3 is very powerful and much needed for our education system,” said Joan Dabrowski, the chief academic officer of Baltimore City Public Schools. “Dr. Wright is very clearly telling the districts they need to prioritize this policy and the state will be monitoring districts so there is a lot of accountability.”

Will the policy work? Dabrowski says it depends on the support teachers and principals receive from Wright to make the difficult changes over several years. “I like everything in the policy, but there are lots of points where implementation could go well or not go well,” she said.

Illinois next to lower cut scores

In June, Illinois made clear that it plans to boost proficiency, too, by following the approach of Wisconsin. Illinois Superintendent Tony Sanders said in a report that his state has one of the toughest definitions of proficiency in the nation. He said students who are on track for college could be mislabeled as not proficient, sending a wrong message to their families.

To fix this, Illinois is planning to adjust its assessment methods by 2025, which will likely boost the state’s proficiency rates.

If Wright fails in Maryland, would she consider following Illinois and other states in easing the rigor of assessments?

She scoffed at the idea.

“When you look over the last decade of dropping test scores, now is not the time to be lowering the bar,” she said. “If you don’t set high expectations, you’re never going to achieve the kinds of goals that you want to achieve. And in our business, it’s called student learning.”

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

​Education reform, Standardized test, Schools, School choice, States, Opinion & analysis