If the United States is serious about giving citizenship to worthy immigrants, we also need to be serious about revoking it from the unworthy.

More than 800,000 immigrants became American citizens in FY2024, and a comparable number are expected in FY2025. There are more than 25 million naturalized American citizens — about half the foreign-born population. I welcome those who followed the rules and took the Oath of Allegiance in good faith.

But many didn’t. That’s where denaturalization comes in.

Becoming an American citizen is a privilege, not a right.

The question of revoking citizenship from immigrants is part of a broader debate about what membership in our national community means — a debate made especially urgent by the waves of mass immigration the political class has allowed into our country over the past 50 years.

A vigorous, ongoing, and unapologetic commitment to denaturalization is an important part of the effort to restore integrity to U.S. citizenship. It is not about restricting citizenship gratuitously, but about demonstrating that becoming an American citizen is a privilege, not a right.

Historically, the number of people denaturalized has been quite low. From 1990 until the first Trump administration, fewer than a dozen immigrants a year on average lost their citizenship through a civil or criminal court process.

The most notable targets were not ordinary fraudsters but war criminals, terrorists, and human rights violators who lied on their applications.

The focus broadened in the first Trump term. The Justice Department created a unit devoted to investigating and litigating denaturalization cases, and the number of cases grew to around 40 per year.

An increase in denaturalizations actually first started under Obama due to technological advancements, and the effort has been stepped up even further in Trump’s second term.

Last year, the Justice Department issued a memo promising, among other things, that “the Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the part of the Department of Homeland Security that handles such matters, has set a target of referring 100 to 200 possible cases per month to the Justice Department.

The immigration game

Our relatively easy citizenship process is generally a good thing. Whether the number of newcomers each year is high or low, the goal for admitting foreigners should be their full absorption into American society.

This is not the way citizenship is handled in, say, the Persian Gulf states, where large foreign majorities are not part of the political community and never can be. In a republic like ours, however, the chief goal of immigration must be to turn newcomers into Americans.

Though it also involves a lot of paperwork, becoming a citizen is not like getting a driver’s license or opening a bank account. A better analogy is that the immigrant is “marrying” America, or being “adopted” by her. Such an arrangement should not be entered into lightly, but once consecrated, it should not be dissolved lightly.

If the candidate for citizenship lied or was never eligible for naturalization to begin with, the relationship must be annulled. A federal court ruling on the issue didn’t use the metaphor of annulment, but the parallel is clear:

Setting aside naturalization for failure to comply with the particular prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship is not a punishment; it merely represents an undoing of that which should not have been done in the first place.Even now, the number of denaturalizations is lower than you might think, given how pervasive fraud is in every corner of our immigration system

Under current law, the reasons for denaturalization must predate the acquisition of citizenship rather than be based solely on conduct after the swearing-in ceremony, however repellent that conduct might be.

Conduct after naturalization can be considered, but only as evidence that the applicant was lying when he took the oath of citizenship. For instance, if you became a Nazi or communist shortly after naturalization, you were likely lying when you swore to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

But even during World War II, the Supreme Court held the government to such a high standard of proof that the Justice Department found it difficult to denaturalize Nazis. In response, Congress enacted a provision that affiliation with a group that would have precluded naturalization within five years of becoming a citizen is prima facie evidence that the person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution when he took the oath.

This provision has never been challenged in court, mainly because it has seldom, if ever, been used. But it might end up in court soon if certain congressional proposals succeed.

For instance, in response to the revelations of widespread fraud by Somali-born naturalized citizens, Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) introduced the SCAM Act to facilitate denaturalization. The bill would expand the five-year window to 10 years and widen the offenses that could lead to denaturalization.

Within 10 years after taking the oath, if the new citizen joins a foreign terrorist organization, defrauds the government, or commits an aggravated felony or an espionage offense, those facts would be considered prima facie evidence that at the time of taking the oath, the person was not of good moral character, was not attached to the principles of the Constitution, and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States — all bars to citizenship.

In other words, commission of the crimes would be evidence that offenders were never eligible for citizenship in the first place, so their acquisition of citizenship would be considered void.

One way to minimize the issue of denaturalization is to do a better job at the front end and not approve applications from unworthy people. To this end, USCIS has resumed neighborhood investigations into certain applicants, “reviewing their residency, moral character, loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, and commitment to the nation’s well-being.”

This is obviously labor-intensive, but it’s better to reject the citizenship applications of liars, fraudsters, and criminals than to try to denaturalize them after the fact.

RELATED: The homicidal empathy of the left’s immigration policies

John Moore/Getty Images

Taking citizenship seriously

Increased focus on denaturalization is but one front in the broader campaign to restore the integrity of American citizenship. President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order — declaring that children born to illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, and other nonresidents should not be citizens — was recently argued before the Supreme Court, which is expected to issue its ruling this summer.

The administration is also moving forward on an initiative to restrict birth tourism — where pregnant women enter on visitor visas specifically so their children will obtain automatic U.S. citizenship. This is designed to put some teeth in a regulation issued during the first Trump term requiring consular officers to deny visas to pregnant women whose primary purpose in coming to the U.S. is to obtain citizenship for their child.

Other changes necessary to restore the meaning of citizenship have not received the same attention. Foreign-language ballots, for instance, are an absurdity. Why even require candidates for citizenship to pass an English-language test if the core sacrament of our civic religion can be conducted in Korean, Spanish, or Armenian?

New citizens swear to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.” But that part of the oath is legally meaningless since the Supreme Court in the Afroyim decision ruled that taking away someone’s citizenship for expressions of dual citizenship was unconstitutional.

While restoring the value of citizenship is not an issue confined to immigration, mass immigration exacerbates it in every way. Denaturalization would simply not be as pressing an issue if annual legal immigration were dramatically reduced. A smaller flow of new immigrants, and the consequent reduction in the number of applicants for citizenship, would reduce the number of mistakes and thus the need for denaturalizations.

As with almost every concern regarding immigration, part of the answer is always less, please.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in the American Mind.

​American citizens, Birth tourism, Birthright citizenship, Mass immigration, Us citizenship, Denaturalization, Legal immigration, Supreme court, Immigration system, Trump, Opinion & analysis 

While BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales tries to give other parents the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their child-rearing approaches, there’s one style she cannot overlook: digital parenting.

“I just have a big problem with this generation of parents that are farming their parenting out to screens,” she says. “They’re essentially letting screens raise their children.”

While there is a movement within the parenting world to reduce — and even eliminate screens — in their children’s lives, iPad kids are still a big issue.

On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” Sara speaks with three-time Billboard country artist, host of “Backwoods Wisdom,” and author of “Ain’t No Wi-Fi in the Woods” Buddy Brown, who has become a vocal advocate for screen-limited, nature-immersed childhoods.

Brown says that he was inspired to write his new book because so much of children’s literature today is “trash.” That’s why “Ain’t No Wi-Fi in the Woods” is deliberately wholesome and nostalgic.

“It’s the illustrator from ‘Winnie-the-Pooh.’ I mean, we went all the way, and it really came together great,” he says.

Sara shares Brown’s enthusiasm for resisting the digitization of parenting.

“We go out to a restaurant … and I look around, and everyone’s on the iPhones and on the iPads, and it makes me sad. It makes my heart sad for this generation of children who don’t understand the human connection like some of the kids who do not just live on screens,” she says.

Brown agrees, stressing the importance of parents being “intentional.”

“One of the things that we made our kids do from the time they were about 4 years old, which is very early, but we made them look at the waiter and order … and what that did was it just gave them that ability to not be afraid of adults, to make eye contact, which so few kids do now,” he shares.

Sara notes that so many older children, even teenagers, seem unable to communicate outside of their devices.

“All they’re doing is scrolling, and they’re typing stuff to their friends … and they’re not actually getting real human companionship. And I just worry what that does not just to their brains but just to their psyche in general,” she laments.

Brown concurs and adds another concern to the list: their futures. One day these screen-addicted kids will grow up and need the social skills necessary to thrive in the real world but will find that they simply don’t have them.

Parents who resist the urge to placate their children with screens will reap the benefits later, he encourages. “Fast-forward 15, 20 years, [your kids] are going to be standouts in whatever they’re doing. … They’re going to thank you later on.”

To hear more of the conversation and get the inside scoop on Brown’s new book — including the wilderness guide it features — watch the video above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Aint no wifi, Backwoods wisdom, Buddy brown, Digital parenting, Human connection, Intentional parenting, Ipad kids, Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Screen addiction, Social skills, Wilderness guide, Real world skills, Blazetv, Blaze media 

Millions over budget and years behind schedule have become defining features of the U.S. defense industrial base, and this dysfunction is colliding with a radically different character of war.

Asymmetric, robotic, and growingly autonomous systems are tactics being employed today by our adversaries. The shift in global security erodes the traditional advantages of scale, time, and mass that America’s defense industrial base was designed to deliver.

It also exposes an acquisition system that cannot move at the speed of relevance.

The fusion of established and startup contractors is the best strategic framework to reshore American manufacturing and reinvigorate our nation’s defense industrial base.

Rewiring these trends will depend on a new posture — one that should be defined by partnerships that marry the scale and sustainment power of established manufacturers with the speed and rapid system iteration of smaller but highly capable companies.

The influx of venture capital into defense technology has given rise to bold, disruptive upstarts that are leveraging agile, product-led engineering, operator-centric design, and best practices from the commercial ecosystem.

New, smaller companies like Palantir and Anduril rapidly iterate their systems and build breakthrough technologies on their dime — well before the U.S. government’s lengthy requirement-writing process plays out.

At the same time, established manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have reignited their innovation arms and reprioritized significant resources to meet the modern needs of the Department of War.

Innovation without scale is as risky as the other way around. That’s why the fusion of established and startup contractors is the best strategic framework to reshore American manufacturing and reinvigorate our nation’s defense industrial base. When they are brought together, this business model creates real results.

General Dynamics Land Systems and Epirus, for example, have partnered to develop two mobile counter-UAS systems for short-range air defense and critical asset protection. Lockheed Martin and Hadrian have inked an agreement to increase production of critical parts for missile systems. Northrop Grumman has invested in Firefly Aerospace to accelerate production of Firefly’s launch vehicle. The list goes on.

These partnerships represent the epitome of American industrial excellence. Importantly, they also align with Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Warfighting Acquisition System by prioritizing the best practices from commercial technology development, AI integration into military technology, cloud-based architectures and system modularity, scalability, and software-driven upgradability.

Pairing establishment know-how and production capacity with startup integration cycles supports the War Department’s vision for rebuilding our military and is a tangible step the industry can take — and is taking today — to shorten the time between prototype development and operational deployment.

RELATED: The US military needs to adapt to modern warfare

USAF/Getty Images

America’s competitive edge always has come from partnerships: between industry and government, between commercial and defense innovation bases, and between engineers and operators. The next era of defense technology development demands the same alignment.

Established contractors and newer startups are not competitors in this race, and there is no need for them to offer competing visions for the future of defense. On the contrary, they share a mission as the co-architects of deterrence.

When America’s established defense contractors and new, cutting-edge startups work together, scale meets speed and innovation meets integration.

This is the industrial base the moment demands and the one we should focus on building together.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

​American manufacturing reshore, Ground combat solutions, Palantir, Defense contractors, Lockheed martin, Us defense industry, American military, Opinion & analysis 

U.S. Senator Jon Ernst (R-Iowa) recently obtained access to Biden-era Small Business Administration communications revealing a “potential cover-up obscuring $90 million in taxpayer funds Biden officials gifted to Planned Parenthood,” America’s largest abortion provider and a leading supplier of sex-rejection hormones.

According to the pro-life lawmaker, Biden officials at the SBA — allegedly operating under the direction of former top SBA lawyer Peggy Hamilton — used the code word “Benghazi” to refer to discussions of Planned Parenthood and its receipt of forgivable COVID-era Paycheck Protection Program loans in the wake of congressional objections to those very loans and demands for greater transparency.

‘Just when we think the Democrats’ extremism can’t get more shocking.’

The use of a wholly unrelated term — the name of the Libyan city where four Americans were savagely murdered by Islamists in 2012 — is believed to have been employed strategically to ensure that future congressional or public record requests wouldn’t turn up the relevant and possibly damning documents regarding the funding of Planned Parenthood, a potential violation of the Federal Records Act.

“What does Benghazi have to do with Planned Parenthood? It appears the Biden SBA used it as a code name to hide the $90 million in taxpayer funds they gifted to the abortion provider,” Ernst said in a statement on Tuesday.

“This potential cover-up demands answers.”

In her letter asking acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to open an investigation into the matter, Ernst raised the possibility that the Biden White House may have been involved in the alleged effort to conceal official federal records and highlighted numerous emails sent by Hamilton in which “Benghazi” appears to have been used as a stand-in for the abortion giant.

In one instance, Hamilton made clear her intended meaning, writing, “Can I schedule a meeting so we can decision Benghazi (Planned Parenthood)?”

RELATED: ‘Baby could just die’: Left-leaning media omits key detail in outrage over pregnant Florida mom’s court-ordered C-section

Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

“Recipients and respondents in the SBA email chains knew Planned Parenthood was not in or even remotely related to Benghazi, yet by continuing the email chain and scheduling meetings, it appears several Biden political appointees, and some SBA employees, were knowingly concealing or attempting to conceal their records relating to Planned Parenthood,” Ernst stated in her letter.

She added, “With the records detailed here, and many more I’ve obtained, perhaps now we know why the Biden administration did not want to share its Planned Parenthood records with Congress.”

“Just when we think the Democrats’ extremism can’t get more shocking, we see the lengths they’ll go to in protecting the Big Abortion industry,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement. “They knew letting Planned Parenthood help itself to taxpayer-funded COVID loans was illegal — so they tried to cover their tracks using, of all things, the national horror of Benghazi.”

These revelations come just months after the SBA issued letters to 38 affiliates of Planned Parenthood demanding proof that they were eligible to receive millions of dollars in PPP loans. The agency noted that affiliates found to have provided fudged or false eligibility certifications may face “severe penalties, including repayment of the loan, ineligibility for loan forgiveness, and possible referral for civil or criminal penalties.”

SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler said in a statement, “Planned Parenthood Federation of America was never eligible to receive a dime in pandemic-era relief from taxpayers. As part of the review under way, not only will we expose the Planned Parenthood affiliates who took advantage of the American people — we will take every necessary step to force every bad actor to pay them back.”

Planned Parenthood did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

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

​Abortion, Abortion provider, Benghazi, Covid loans, Eligibility, Ernst, Fraud, Joni ernst, Marjorie dannenfelser, Paycheck protection program, Planned parenthood, Ppp loans, Sba loans, Small business administration, Susan b anthony, Taxpayer funds, Todd blanche, Politics 

A strange criminal case got even more bizarre when the suspect of a gas station shooting appeared to confess in a video on social media.

Shantay Lashay O’Donnell, 46, of Virginia was caught on surveillance video allegedly pulling out a gun at the Columbia, Maryland, gas station and pulling the trigger.

‘I shot that man because he has a demon spirit, and he laughed in my face and thought it was funny. I bet he ain’t laughing now.’

Police said she was trying to rob the store but left without anything in the April 24 incident, as reported previously by Blaze News.

The 65-year-old worker was transported in critical condition to the Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore. Police released video of the shooting in an attempt to get public help to find the woman.

In the days following the shooting, O’Donnell allegedly posted a video confessing to the crime and laughing about the victim.

“I’m the one that did the shooting at the gas station,” she said in the video.

“I shot that man because he has a demon spirit, and he laughed in my face and thought it was funny. I bet he ain’t laughing now,” she added.

She went on to say that she was “getting ready to rob something right now” and claimed she didn’t pay for anything but stole what she needed.

Days later, O’Donnell was arrested more than 300 miles away in Johnson City, New York, after Binghamton police identified her through a license plate reader at another gas station.

She was charged with the illegal possession of two guns and is awaiting extradition to Maryland or Virginia.

O’Donnell is expected to face first- and second-degree attempted murder charges in Maryland, as well as other charges.

RELATED: Mother, pregnant teen daughter, and son found ‘brutally’ murdered — one nearly decapitated, police say

Howard County police spokesman Seth Hoffman said the “incredibly brazen” shooting was atypical.

“We have robberies and some thefts in gas stations where somebody may imply a weapon or show a weapon but not use it, and they usually leave with something,” he said. “Here, we have somebody who just shot and left with nothing.”

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

​Social media confession, Gas station shooting, Shooting security video, Shantay o’donnell, Crime 

Many Americans today feel as if home ownership is a pipe dream. The prices, even for modest homes, are just too steep.

But why? What’s the real reason homes have become so unaffordable?

The answer is multifaceted, says Glenn Beck.

No doubt the broken economy is part of the problem. “We have to fix the fraud,” he urges. “The latest numbers from the GAO, the Government Accounting Office, is that they estimate that our government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion every year based on fraud between 2018 through 2022.”

However, there’s another factor most are unwilling to grapple with: Our expectations have increased.

In the 1950s — “the golden era of America,” says Glenn — the average size home for a family of four was “983 square feet.” Today, it’s “2,500 square feet.”

“If I told you you could afford a modest home of that size (under 1,000 square feet) and raise your family in it, would you take it?” he asks.

But the main driver behind the skyrocketing price of homes, he says, is the increase in land prices.

“Why is land so expensive?” Glenn asks. “Because our government made it that way” through “zoning laws, permits, restrictions, [and] endless layers of EPA approval.”

“We didn’t run out of land. We restricted the access to the land,” he emphasizes.

Add to that the immigration boom, which led to “an overwhelming demand for homes,” and you get the situation we’re in today.

But America has been in a similar predicament before and survived it, says Glenn. After WWII, millions of soldiers returned home eager to buy homes and start families, resulting in a housing shortage “far, far worse in many ways than what we’re facing today.”

Our answer back then was simply to build faster.

“Homes were built in days, not months — days,” says Glenn, noting that “the GI Bill,” “the interstate highway system [opening] up the land that had never been reachable before,” and “the government [getting] out of the way” are what allowed this to happen.

“Prices rose at first because everybody needed a home, and then they stabilized because supply caught up with demand,” he continues.

But today, things are different.

Instead of “unleashing builders,” we’re “restraining them”; instead of “expanding supply,” we’re “constraining it,” says Glenn.

“This is why the most important number is not the price of a home. It is the ratio between a home price and income,” he explains. “In 1960, the average cost was two times the average annual income. Today it’s over five times.”

“That’s the difference between opportunity and exclusion; that’s the difference between a young family starting a life and one stuck renting indefinitely.”

Today, we’re a nation that believes more in “obstruction” than “building” — a nation that cares more about the “planet” than “people.”

Once upon a time, “the country believed that growth was good, expansion was good, opportunity was something that you created, not something that you rationed,” says Glenn, “and somewhere along the way, that whole mindset of America changed.”

“We didn’t lose the land. We didn’t lose the resources. We’ve lost the will. And until that changes, this doesn’t get fixed,” he warns.

Contrary to popular belief, the American dream isn’t dead, he insists. It’s simply on pause until we can fix the long list of issues barring many Americans from buying homes.

While we have little control over fraud, government regulation, and land prices, we do have control over our own mindsets. Glenn urges his listeners to remember that the American dream isn’t about status — “it’s about freedom and opportunity and hard work and faith and building a life with the people that you love.”

“Let’s remember what it means to actually be happy,” he pleads.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Affordability, American dream, Demand, Economy, Fraud, Glenn beck, Home ownership, Immigration boom, Land prices, Obstruction, Supply, The glenn beck program, Zoning laws, Epa approval, Blazetv, Blaze media 

Why is the National Education Association encouraging students to skip school?

Yesterday was May 1 — May Day — and across the country, activists staged coordinated demonstrations under the banner of “no work, no school, no shopping.”

These are sweeping political claims, touching on immigration policy, cultural debates, and national partisan conflicts.

The National Education Association — with roughly 3 million members, making it the largest labor union in the United States — was among the organizations supporting the effort. On its website, the NEA offers organizational resources for participants, including a “solidarity toolkit.”

May Day? Mayday!

The union frames May Day as part of a long tradition of labor activism, tracing its roots to the late 19th-century movement for the eight-hour workday.

Broadly speaking, that’s true.

But May Day also carries a more complicated legacy. Over the course of the 20th century, it became closely associated with socialist and communist movements worldwide, and in the United States it has often re-emerged as a vehicle for broader political protest.

That broader agenda is evident in some of the demands the NEA highlights.

Among them:

“Stop the billionaire takeover and rampant corruption of the Trump administration.”“Stop the attacks on our communities, including policies targeting immigrants, people of color, Native people, people with disabilities, and those who identify as LGBTQ+.”

These are not narrowly labor-oriented concerns. They are sweeping political claims, touching on immigration policy, cultural debates, and national partisan conflicts.

Mission creep

Which raises a more basic question: What does this have to do with the NEA’s stated purpose?

The organization describes its mission as “to advocate for education professionals and to unite our members and the nation to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world.”

Encouraging participation in a day of protest framed explicitly around “no school” sits uneasily alongside that mission. And May Day is just the tip of the iceberg

According to a new report from watchdog group Defending Education, teachers’ unions have spent more than $1 billion on political activity since 2015 — including roughly $669 million at the federal level and $336 million at the state and local levels.

Some of that spending aligns with what most people would expect. In California, for example, unions spent more than $20 million backing Proposition 15, a 2020 ballot initiative that would have raised taxes on commercial properties to increase funding for public schools and community colleges. The measure ultimately failed.

But much of it extends far beyond that.

RELATED: ‘Eco-Socialism’ now! Inside Sunrise Movement’s ‘revolution’ playbook

Defending Education | Robert Gauthier/Getty Images

PAC mentality

Defending Education’s report highlights tens of millions directed toward major Democrat-aligned groups, including:

$32 million to Senate Majority PAC.$25 million to House Majority PAC.$60 million to the State Engagement Fund, a progressive funding hub that supports state-level campaigns and advocacy.$44 million to For Our Future, a Democrat-aligned organizing group focused on voter turnout and elections.

At the state level, unions have also poured money into targeted political fights — opposing school choice initiatives, backing candidates, and influencing local school board races.

In California, union spending has extended into high-profile contests as well. The California Teachers Association’s PACs spent $1.8 million opposing the 2021 recall of Gavin Newsom and committed millions more to a 2025 ballot measure related to election policy.

The same report also points to funding for organizing groups like the Midwest Academy, which describes itself as “committed to providing organizers with the practical skills needed to address the challenges of forging change in a system rooted in white supremacy.”

It has received $1.7 million from the NEA since 2015 and has helped produce activist training materials tied to sustained protest efforts.

Out of school

Teachers’ unions have always played a role in politics. When that role is tied directly to classrooms — teacher pay, school funding, working conditions — the connection is clear.

But as their spending and activities expand into broader political organizing, electoral campaigns, and now protest mobilization, that connection becomes harder to define.

Unlike most political organizations, teachers’ unions are funded by member dues — payments that many educators make as a practical requirement of their profession. That makes their political activity qualitatively different from a typical advocacy group or PAC.

The question isn’t whether unions should — or can — be entirely “apolitical.” It is whether their current scope reflects the priorities of the educators who fund them — and the students they have pledged to serve.

​Culture, Donald trump, Education, Lifestyle, National education association, No kings, Public schools, Socialism, Teacher’s unions, May day, Counterrevolution