Cutting education is an ‘America last’ not an ‘America first’ approach by mily Markovich Morris, Emily Markovich Morris Emily Markovich Morris Fellow - Global Economy and Development, Center for Universal Education Sweta Shah, and Rebecca Winthrop

 

With the stroke of a pen, President Trump and his administration have cut education investments and weakened the United States’ global competitive edge—in stark opposition to the government’s America First Priorities. Using executive orders to debilitate the U.S. Department of Education (ED), the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID), and universities, the administration is creating an education shock where a system is suddenly compromised by attacks that leave it struggling to breathe and thrive. 

Only 4% of the U.S. federal budget goes to education, yet ED’s work touches most American schools and children. For example, nearly half of public schools receive Title 1 funding, which helps cover staffing, tutoring, and other critical services for schools that serve a high proportion of low-income students, including those in rural areas. Meanwhile, China has been increasing education funding to exceed its 4% benchmark. Cutting funds to U.S. schools, eliminating research on how to close learning gaps, and killing innovation grants will prevent children across all states from reaching their full potential as successful innovators and leaders. This education shock will not only hurt American students and communities but will also ultimately stifle the U.S. economy and force businesses to recruit more foreign workers. 

The education shock is also hurting the roughly 85 countries that rely on USAID for education programming to keep their societies and neighboring countries safe. These programs prevent youth migration to the U.S. in search of work and safety. Additionally, eliminating USAID forces hundreds of U.S. businesses that provide goods and services to schools worldwide to close their doors and lay off workers. Taxpayers spend only about $3.95 a year on education programs through USAID—about the same as a cup of coffee at Starbucks —but these programs have improved education and life outcomes for children living in some of the most dire circumstances

 

If the administration wants to put America first, it must quit throwing education shocks at our children and families at home and abroad as this will ultimately suffocate the U.S. economy. The U.S. needs to prioritize education, or it will fall behind other countries like China in development. Here are five reasons why education cuts will hurt American children, communities, and employers.

The US will lose in the global competition for talent and innovation

The U.S. has long been an education, research, and innovation powerhouse which has enabled it to foster some of the world’s best and brightest talent and innovators. Federal funds have fueled this excellence. Cuts to ED’s Institute for Education Sciences, the National Institutes for Health (NIH), and more, put the education, research, and innovation space in jeopardy and threaten the United States’ development as a nation. The domino effect of research cuts through NIH is already being felt at American universities, which rely on federal funds to ensure they are producing cutting-edge research and innovation and training young people to be at the forefront of new frontiers like AI. 

The U.S. economy depends on skilled labor, and by hurting research and our universities, we are threatening our supply of skilled workers. As Elon Musk said, “There is a dire shortage of extremely talented and motivated engineers in America. If you force the world’s best talent to play for the other side, America will LOSE.” Without an investment in education, research and innovation, the U.S. will lose the very people it needs to maintain leadership in global innovation. 

The best and brightest no longer will come to the US for higher education

The United States’ status as a top education destination for international students ensures universities remain at the top of the innovation game. International students also provide critical funding to universities, which benefits U.S. students. During President Trump’s first term, international student enrollment went down by 15% in 2020/2021, dipping below 1 million students, due to government policies and the COVID-19 pandemic. Post-pandemic enrollment increased by 11.5% in 2022/2023, returning to the 1 million student mark. International student enrollments are likely to go downward again due to the volatility of U.S. policies. On the other hand, the number of international students seeking to study in China, Canada, the U.K. and several other countries, is increasing.

International students also contribute financially to the U.S. economy and fill critical workforce gaps, especially in areas like health and technology. In the 2023-2024 academic year, international students at U.S. universities contributed $43.8 billion and supported 378,175 jobs to the U.S. economy. Many international students have become CEOs of U.S. companies (Satya Nadella) or taken leadership globally at the United Nations (Kofi Annan). Educating future global leaders is form of soft power that enables the U.S. to influence and shape the global political and economic environment. Throwing education shocks at our universities makes it impossible for them to attract and produce talent. 

The US is setting the stage for further learning losses

In addition to economically strangling American schools, cuts at ED are laying the foundation for deeper and more enduring learning losses that will put children further behind. The 2025 Education Recovery Scorecard indicates that students in most states are not achieving at the same reading and math levels as they were in 2019, pre-pandemic. While the losses vary by state, many red and blue states are not on track for their students to graduate and thrive in the workforce. 

Cutting research and data collection that tracks how well children learn is bad practice. No one wants to take medication that has not been well-researched, yet schools are expected to figure out how to curb learning loss without robust data. 

Dismantling ED funding is already creating uncertainty in states and schools as they make their budgets for the next school year. While most schools are funded locally, federal funds fill gaps for rural schools, schools with large numbers of low-income students, and services for students with disabilities. The energy spent fighting federal cuts will lead to a chilling effect in schools with lower returns on investment. Student disengagement and declines in boys’ participation and achievement in education are already on the rise, as are poor mental health and skills mismatch. Schools need more funding and support, not less. Preventing kids from learning better prevents them from doing better when they become adults and from obtaining 21st century jobs. 

US security will deteriorate.

Dismantling USAID’s education investments that provide stability and services across the world makes our communities less safe. Young people without viable and safe employment and educational opportunities are connected to rises in violence, extremism, and other threats to their communities and across borders. Instead of discussing knowledge and resource transfers to help young people serve productive lives in their communities, the U.S. is discussing transfers of criminals. 

Donor funded education and youth programs in the Northern Triangle (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador), for example, have helped to address social exclusion and to ensure that young people have alternatives to gang violence and a viable option for staying in their countries as opposed to being pushed to migrate to the U.S. With the United States’ recent stance to deport migrants and cut USAID funding, governments such as Honduras suggest that this approach pushes them closer to China who can support them through a funding vacuum. Fewer efforts to tackle the roots of migration and security mean that the U.S. is setting up a situation where security will further deteriorate across borders. 

US funding cuts will create lots of harm for little gain

Proposed funding cuts to education at home and abroad will do little to reduce the national debt, but as discussed above, undermine the U.S. role in the world and undercut its economic potential. Only 4% of the U.S. federal budget supports education through the ED. Less than 1% of the federal budget went to USAID programming in 2023, with a fraction of this (less than 2% of the $40 billion) going to USAID’s education programming. Education is the foundation for poverty reduction and economic growth. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio said when he was senator, “95 percent of the people on this planet who buy things live outside the United States … . We are helping people to emerge from poverty and ultimately become members of a global consumer class who buys American goods and services.” 

Conclusion

Making governments more efficient and accountable is a good goal for all administrations. However, creating education shocks through the rapid and haphazard dismantling of education investments is not just bad for children and their families, it is bad for the U.S. economy and security. Cutting education without a clear long-term strategy is an America last and not an America First approach. If the administration wants to “improve the education, well-being, and future success” of young people in the U.S., it needs to have the structures, systems, plans, and skilled workforce in place to do this.   

Cutting Medicaid and federal programs are among 4 key Trump administration policy changes that could make life harder for disabled people by Matthew Borus

 

While policy debates on immigration, abortion and other issues took center stage in the 2024 presidential election, the first months of the Trump administration have also signaled major changes in federal disability policy.

An estimated 20% to 25% of Americans have a disability of some kind, including physical, sensory, psychological and intellectual disabilities.

Disability experts, myself included, fear that the Trump administration is creating new barriers for disabled people to being hired at a job, getting a quality education and providing for basic needs, including health insurance.

Here are four key areas of disability policy to watch over the coming years. 

 

1. Rights at work

The Americans with Disabilities Act, which became law in 1990, requires that employers with more than 15 employees not discriminate against otherwise qualified candidates on the basis of their disability. It also requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to disabled workers. This means, for instance, that a new or renovated workplace should have accessible entrances so that a worker who uses a wheelchair can enter.

Despite these protections, I have spoken to many disabled workers in my research who are reluctant to ask for accommodations for fear that a supervisor might think that they were too demanding or not worth continuing to employ.

 

Trump’s actions in his first days in office have likely reinforced such fears.

In one of the many executive orders Trump signed on Jan. 20, 2025, he called for the relevant government agencies to terminate what he called “all discriminatory programs,” including all diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility policies, programs and activities that Trump deems “immoral.”

The next day, Trump put workers in federal DEIA and accessibility positions on administrative leave.

The following week, a tragic plane crash outside Washington, D.C., killed 67 people. Trump, without any evidence, blamed the crash on unidentified disabled workers in the Federal Aviation Administration, enumerating a wide and seemingly unrelated list of disabilities that, in his mind, meant that workers lacked the “special talent” to work at the FAA.

Advocates quickly pushed back, pointing out that disabled workers meet all qualifications for federal and private sector jobs they are hired to perform.

2. The federal workforce

Many government disability programs have complex rules designed to limit the number of people who qualify for support.

For instance, I study Supplemental Security Income, a federal program that provides very modest cash support – on average, totaling US$697 a month in 2024 – to 7.4 million people who are disabled, blind or over 65 if they also have very low income and assets.

It can take months or even years for someone to go through the process to initially document their disability and finances and show they qualify for SSI. Once approved, many beneficiaries want to make sure they don’t accidentally put their benefits at risk in situations where they are working very limited hours, for example.

To get answers, they can go to a Social Security office or call an agency phone line. But there are already not enough agency workers to process applications or answer questions quickly. I spoke in 2022 with SSI beneficiaries who waited on hold for hours while they tried to get more information about their cases, only to receive unclear or conflicting information.

Such situations may grow even more severe, as Trump and billionaire Elon Musk try to eliminate large numbers of federal employee positions. So far, tens of thousands of federal workers have been laid off from their jobs in 2025. More layoffs may be coming – on Feb. 12, 2025, Trump instructed federal agency heads to prepare for further “large-scale reductions in force.”

At the same time, multiple Social Security Administration offices have also been marked for closure since January 2025. An overall effect of these changes will be fewer workers to answer questions from disabled citizens.

3. Educational opportunities

Students with disabilities, like all students, are legally entitled to a free public education. This right is guaranteed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, passed in 1975. IDEA is enforced by the federal Education Department.

But Trump is reportedly in the process of dismantling the Education Department, with the goal of eventually closing it. It is not clear what this will mean for Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act enforcement, but one possibility is laid out in the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership, a policy blueprint with broad support in Trump’s administration.

Project 2025 proposes that Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act funds “should be converted into a no-strings formula block grant.” Block grants are a funding structure by which federal funds are reduced and each state is given a lump sum rather than designating the programs the funds will support. In practice, this can mean that states divert the money to other programs or policy areas, which can create opportunities for funds to be misused.

With block grants, local school districts would be subject to less federal oversight meant to ensure that they provide every student with an adequate education. Families who already must fight to ensure that their children receive the schooling they deserve will be put on weaker footing if the federal government signals that states can redirect the money as they wish.

4. Health care

Before President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, many disabled people lived with the knowledge that an insurer could regard a disability as a preexisting condition and thereby deny them coverage or charge more for their insurance.

The ACA prohibited insurance companies from charging more or denying coverage based on preexisting conditions.

Republicans have long opposed the ACA, with House Speaker Mike Johnson promising before the 2024 election to pursue an agenda of “No Obamacare.”

About 15 million disabled people have health insurance through Medicaid, a federal health insurance program that covers more than 74 million low-income people. But large Medicaid cuts are also on the Republican agenda.

These deep cuts might include turning Medicaid into another block grant. They could also partly take the form of imposing work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries, which could serve as grounds on which to disqualify people from receiving benefits.

While proponents of work requirements often claim that disabled people will be exempt, research shows that many will still lose health coverage, and that Medicaid coverage itself often supports people who are working.

Medicaid is also a crucial source of funding for home- and community-based services, including personal attendants who help many people perform daily activities and live on their own. This helps disabled people live independently in their communities, rather than in institutional settings. Notably, Project 2025 points to so-called “nonmedical” services covered under Medicaid as part of the program’s “burden” on states.

When home- and community-based services are unavailable, some disabled people have no options but to move into nursing homes. One recent analysis found that nursing homes housed roughly 210,000 long-term residents under age 65 with disabilities. Many nursing facilities are understaffed, which contributed to the brutal toll of the COVID-19 pandemic in nursing homes.

In response to both the pandemic and years of advocacy, the Biden administration mandated higher staffing ratios at nursing homes receiving Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. But Republicans are eyeing repealing that rule, according to Politico’s reporting.

U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat, right, speaks during a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 19, 2025, on efforts to protect Medicaid from cuts. Nathan Poser/Anadolu via Getty Images

Daunting task

Tracking potential changes to disability policy is a complicated endeavor. There is no federal department of disability policy, for example.

Instead, relevant laws and programs are spread throughout what we often think of as separate policy areas. So while disability policy includes obvious areas such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is also vitally relevant in areas such as immigration and emergency response.

These issues of health care, education and more could impact millions of lives, but they are far from the only ones where Trump administration changes threaten to harm disabled people.

Different programs have their own definitions of disability, which people seeking assistance must work to keep track of.

This was a daunting task in 2024. Now it may become even more difficult.

Child in West Texas is first US measles death in a decade by By Neha Mukherjee, CNN

 

The first measles death in the growing outbreak in West Texas was a school-aged child.

The child was unvaccinated and had been hospitalized in Lubbock, Texas, said Lauren Adams, Lubbock city spokesperson. Officials did not answer questions regarding the patient’s specific age, any other health issues, or details about the patient’s schooling in a press conference jointly hosted by Covenant Health and the City of Lubbock Public Health on Wednesday.

This is the first US measles death since 2015, when a woman in Washington state died.

The number of confirmed measles cases reported in an outbreak in West Texas is now at 124, the Texas Department of Health Services said in an update Tuesday, an increase of 34 since late last week. Most of the cases are in children ages 5 to 17.

At President Donald Trump’s first cabinet meeting on Wednesday, he deferred a question about the measles outbreak in Texas to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, who said, “We are following the measles epidemic every day.” 

 

Kennedy said during the cabinet meeting that there had been two measles deaths but Texas officials confirmed Wednesday afternoon there has been only one death. New Mexico officials said no measles deaths have been reported in the state.

Eighteen people have been hospitalized so far in the outbreak. All have been unvaccinated.

Kennedy said that hospitalizations were “mainly for quarantine” but local health officials told CNN most patients were admitted for respiratory issues.

“We don’t hospitalize patients for quarantine purposes,” said Dr. Lara Johnson, the chief medical officer of Covenant Health Lubbock Service Area. “Quarantine is not something that would happen in a healthcare facility. We admit patients who need acute supportive treatment in our hospital.” 

 

Patients have been needing supplemental oxygen and respiratory support to help them get over viral pneumonia linked to the measles,” Johnson told CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta last week.

It’s not clear why Kennedy said there were two deaths. In a response to questions from CNN about Kennedy’s comments, HHS Director of Communications Andrew G. Nixon said the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “is aware of the death of one child in Texas from measles, and our thoughts are with the family. CDC continues to provide technical assistance, laboratory support, and vaccines as needed to the Texas Department of State Health Services and New Mexico Department of Health, which are leading the response to this outbreak.”

Kennedy also referenced past measles outbreaks saying, “So it’s not unusual. You have measles outbreaks every year.”

In the press conference Johnson commented, “The United States had really gotten to a point where we just didn’t see these kinds of outbreaks happening. Obviously, that has changed over the last 20 something years, and so we do see outbreaks more frequently, but that that is related to how much we’re vaccinating our population.”

“When we think of about vaccine preventable illnesses, they’re only preventable if we have adequate vaccination rates,” said Johnson.

The bulk of the cases, 80, remain in Gaines County, where the outbreak began, but there has also been spread to eight additional counties. Most of the cases are in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status is unknown. Five cases were reported in people who said they have been vaccinated. 

 

Measles is an airborne illness that can cause rash, fever, red eyes and cough. Severe cases can result in blindness, pneumonia or encephalitis, swelling of the brain. In some cases, the illness can be fatal.

While details on the specific death in Lubbock are still unknown, experts have long warned that measles complications that can result in death in children.

Up to 3 out of 1,000 children with measles will die from respiratory or neurological complications, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Specifically, 1 in 20 children with measles will develop pneumonia, the most common cause of death from the disease, according to Dr. Catherine Troisi, an infectious disease epidemiologist with UTHealth Houston who was not directly involved with the Lubbock patient. 

 

“These outbreaks last between two to six months. That’s a long time. That’s a lot of kids infected … death is rare, but tragic when it happens, but there are a lot of other sequelae, encephalitis, for example, and deafness. There’s a rare neurological disease that can happen. So, as you have more people infected, these sequelae become more common.”

The best way to stay protected against measles is to get vaccinated with the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, according to experts.

The Lubbock department of health has opened free vaccination clinics which have given about 70 vaccinations since the start of the outbreak, according to city officials.

Coverage of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is particularly low in Gaines County, where nearly 1 in 5 incoming kindergartners in the 2023-24 school year did not get the vaccine. Other affected Texas counties also fall below a goal of 95%, set by HHS, that’s necessary to help prevent outbreaks of the highly contagious disease. 

 

Given how contagious measles is, health officials warn that cases may continue to rise in West Texas.

“I very rarely say I’m 100% sure of something, but I am 100% sure we will see an increase in cases … Texas as a state is under vaccinated, so there are susceptible people,” Troisi said. She also worries because of the contagious nature of the disease: People don’t show symptoms before they become infectious, and the virus can stay in the air for up to two hours, even after a person with the virus leaves the area. 

 

“Measles is the most infectious virus we know. However, it’s a harbinger of low vaccination rates, and it is quite likely we will start seeing outbreaks of other diseases that are vaccine preventable as well as these vaccine rates decrease,” Troisi said.

Even the 124 cases identified in Texas are likely an undercount, according to Dr. Peter Hotez, co-director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. He says some children may not be seeking medical care or could still be waiting for laboratory confirmation. Texas health officials have listed several public spaces, including a university campus, a museum and convenience stores, where measles exposures may have occurred in recent weeks.

Hotez worries specifically about an upcoming rodeo in Houston that draws families from West Texas.

“It will continue as long as the virus continues to find unvaccinated kids. And unfortunately, the vaccination rates in many counties in West Texas are still unacceptably low. So that’s why I think it could go on for a while,” Hotez said.

Francis − a pope who has cared deeply for the poor and opened up the Catholic Church by Mathew Schmalz

 

Pope Francis, who remains in critical condition and hospitalized as he battles pneumonia in both lungs, was elected pope on March 13, 2013, after the surprise resignation of Benedict XVI.

Prior to becoming pope, he was Jorge Mario Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires, and was the first person from the Americas to be elected to the papacy. He was also the first pope to choose Francis as his name, thus honoring St. Francis of Assisi, a 13th-century mystic whose love for nature and the poor have inspired Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Pope Francis chose not to wear the elaborate clothing, like red shoes or silk vestments, associated with other popes. As a scholar of global Catholicism, however, I would argue that the changes Francis brought to the papacy were more than skin deep. He opened the church to the outside world in ways none of his predecessors had done before.

Care for the marginalized

Pope Francis reached out personally to the poor. For example, he turned a Vatican plaza into a refuge for the homeless, whom he called “nobles of the street.”

 

He washed the feet of migrants and prisoners during the traditional foot-washing ceremony on the Thursday before Easter. In an unprecedented act for a pope, he also washed the feet of non-Christians.

He encouraged a more welcoming attitude toward gay and lesbian Catholics and invited transgender people to meet with him at the Vatican. 

 

On other contentious issues, Francis reaffirmed official Catholic positions. He labeled homosexual behavior a “sin,” although he also stated that it should not be considered a crime. Francis criticized gender theory for “blurring” differences between men and women.

While he maintained the church’s position that all priests should be male, he made far-reaching changes that opened various leadership roles to women. Francis was the first pope to appoint a woman to head an administrative office at the Vatican. Also for the first time, women were included in the 70-member body that selects bishops and the 15-member council that oversees Vatican finances. He appointed an Italian nun, Sister Raffaella Petrini, as President of the Vatican City.

 

Not shy of controversy

Some of Francis’ positions led to opposition in some Catholic circles.

One such issue was related to Francis’ embrace of religious diversity. Delivering an address at the Seventh Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions in Kazakhstan in 2022, he said that members of the world’s different religions were “children of the same heaven.”

While in Morocco, he spoke out against conversion as a mission, saying to the Catholic community that they should live “in brotherhood with other faiths.” To some of his critics, however, such statements undermined the unique truth of Christianity.

During his tenure, the pope called for “synodality,” a more democratic approach to decision making. For example, synod meetings in November 2023 included laypeople and women as voting members. But the synod was resisted by some bishops who feared it would lessen the importance of priests as teachers and leaders.

In a significant move that will influence the choosing of his successor, Pope Francis appointed more cardinals from the Global South. But not all Catholic leaders in the Global South followed his lead on doctrine. For example, African bishops publicly criticized Pope Francis’ December 2023 ruling that allowed blessings of individuals in same sex couples.

His most controversial move was limiting the celebration of the Mass in the older form that uses Latin. This reversed a decision made by Benedict XVI that allowed the Latin Mass to be more widely practiced.

Traditionalists argued that the Latin Mass was an important – and beautiful – part of the Catholic tradition. But Francis believed that it had divided Catholics into separate groups who worshiped differently.

This concern for Catholic unity also led him to discipline two American critics of his reforms, Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, and Cardinal Raymond Burke. Most significantly, Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Vatican ambassador, or nuncio, to the United States was excommunicated during Francis’ tenure for promoting “schism.”

Recently, Pope Francis also criticized the Trump administration’s efforts to deport migrants. In a letter to US Bishops, he recalled that Jesus, Mary and Joseph had been emigrants and refugees in Egypt. Pope Francis also argued that migrants who enter a country illegally should not be treated as criminals because they are in need and have dignity as human beings.

Writings on ‘the common good’

In his official papal letters, called encyclicals, Francis echoed his public actions by emphasizing the “common good,” or the rights and responsibilities necessary for human flourishing.

 

His first encyclical in 2013, Lumen Fidei, or “The Light of Faith,” sets out to show how faith can unite people everywhere.

In his next encyclical, Laudato Si’, or “Praise Be to You,” Francis addressed the environmental crisis, including pollution and climate change. He also called attention to unequal distribution of wealth and called for an “integral ecology” that respects both human beings and the environment.

His third encyclical in 2020, Fratelli Tutti, or “Brothers All,” criticized a “throwaway culture” that discards human beings, especially the poor, the unborn and the elderly. In a significant act for the head of the Catholic Church, Francis concluded by speaking of non-Catholics who have inspired him: Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu and Mahatma Gandhi.

In his last encyclical, Dilexit Nos, or “He Loved Us,” he reflected on God’s Love through meditating on the symbol of the Sacred Heart that depicts flames of love coming from Jesus’ wounded heart that was pierced during the crucifixion.

Francis also proclaimed a special “year of mercy” in 2015-16. The pope consistently argued for a culture of mercy that reflects the love of Jesus Christ, calling him “the face of God’s mercy.”

A historic papacy

Francis’ papacy has been historic. He embraced the marginalized in ways that no pope had done before. He not only deepened the Catholic Church’s commitment to the poor in its religious life but also expanded who is included in its decision making.

The pope did have his critics who thought he went too far, too fast. And whether his reforms take root depends on his successor. Among many things, Francis will be remembered for how his pontificate represented a shift in power in the Catholic Church away from Western Europe to the Global South, where the majority of Catholics now live.

 

The Jeff Bezos brand is in a slump BY Rob Walker

 Bezos’s personal brand seems to have faded from hard-charging, fearless visionary to just another rich guy trying to stay relevant.

 

Not so long ago, Jeff Bezos seemed on the cusp of a triumphant second act. Handing off the CEO reins to his Amazon empire, he shifted attention to his rocket company, Blue Origin, with a mission to help humanity colonize the solar system; a couple of years ago, he even personally rode one its rockets into space. Meanwhile, he was treated as a hero for buying an ailing Washington Post, and under his ownership, the reenergized paper greeted the first Trump presidency with a dire but defiant new slogan: “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Even in the rarified realm of tech centibillionaires, Bezos seemed pretty alpha.

These days . . . not so much. In the past couple of weeks alone, Blue Origin announced it would lay off 10% of its workforce, and the Post attracted attention for declining to publish an ad critical of the second Trump presidency and the murky role of fellow (or rival) mega-billionaire Elon Musk. Whether Bezos had any direct role in the latter decision (the Post isn’t talking), it adds to a series of incidents that suggest an effort to stay on the administration’s good side. In other words, Bezos’s personal brand seems to have faded from hard-charging, fearless visionary to just another rich guy trying to stay relevant.

To be sure, Jeff Bezos isn’t exactly in danger of losing his mega yacht. Amazon is still thriving—its share price hit a record high earlier this month, and its revenue just surpassed Walmart’s—albeit under its new CEO. But consider the contrast to Musk, whose portfolio also includes a rocket company (SpaceX) and a media platform (the former Twitter). Even before the new Trump administration took office with Musk practically riding shotgun, SpaceX had established itself as a fixture in America’s space program, and notched achievements like a space walk and the furthest-out orbital flight in 50 years.

 

The Bezos brand, meanwhile, has bogged down. Blue Orbit’s layoffs of an estimated 1,000 employees—the company pointed to a workforce that had become bloated during a period of fast growth—followed a successful launch of its 320-foot New Glenn reusable rocket. But that launch was about five years later than originally planned, and the company is widely seen as lagging behind SpaceX (even though it is actually a couple of years older). It will surely remain in the hunt for NASA and Department of Defense contracts, but not in the lead. “We’re obviously huge fans,” Blue Origin’s CEO has said of the new Trump regime’s seemingly space-friendly agenda.

Lots of tech leaders seem to be jockeying to be perceived as, if not already “huge fans,” then at least optimistic and noncritical players in whatever the Trump agenda turns out to be. But few have attracted more critical blowback for this apparent attitude shift than Jeff Bezos.

Again, Musk is the most glaring contrast, having become a de facto-power player within the administration, a role he both amplifies and leverages with his X social media network. Bezos was just one tech titan—alongside Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, among others—attending Trump’s inauguration, donating to his inaugural fund, and joining the crowd of chief executives seeking to curry favor with, or at least escape the spite of, the president. But while many have been accused of shamelessly displaying fealty, Bezos has taken the most lumps.

This traces back to his ownership of the Post and the surprising decision that the paper would not make a presidential endorsement, just as it was poised to endorse Kamala Harris—and shortly before Blue Origin’s CEO was to have a meeting with Trump. Bezos denied any quid pro quo, but critics saw the incident as kowtowing. Subsequent episodes—a cartoonist quitting the Post when one of her anti-Trump pieces was rejected, and now the paper’s decision to turn away ads from the nonpartisan advocacy group Common Cause’s calling for Musk’s ouster from his ill-defined government role—have only added to a sense of caution and vulnerability that feels like the opposite of vintage Bezos.

As the Post itself has reported, it’s not just Blue Origin that will need smooth government relations. Amazon (where Bezos remains executive chairman) has major federal contracts for its cloud division, with billions more in Pentagon contracts up for grabs in the years ahead. And in the past, Trump hasn’t been shy about blaming “Jeff Bozo” for Post coverage he didn’t like, and other perceived slights. The main criticism of Peak Bezos was that he could be severely demanding and hypercompetitive. Given the president’s penchant for retribution, maybe the most competitive move Bezos still has is not antagonizing him.

And for the moment, at least, that seems to be working. Trump certainly hasn’t had anything negative to say about Jeff Bezos lately. Maybe with this version of Bezos, he needn’t bother.

 

Why Woody Guthrie Hated Donald Trump’s Dad By Savannah Cox

 

The famed folk singer penned some angry -- and unpublished -- words about Donald Trump's father in the 1950s. Here's why.

 

Decades before the public took to verbally skewering Donald Trump for his apparent racism, folk singer Woody Guthrie set his sights on another racist Trump: Donald’s father, Fred.

In 1950, Guthrie moved to New York, where he soon found himself signing a lease for a space in a Coney Island-area apartment complex called Beach Haven. Little did Guthrie know that in doing so, he would come into contact with one of New York’s biggest real estate tycoons: Fred C. Trump.

The relationship was perhaps doomed from the start. After all, Guthrie is best known today for writing one of American history’s most radical endorsements of the redistribution of wealth (“This Land is Your Land”), whereas Trump’s entire business model comprised acquiring and developing said land only to cash in on its increased valuation.

Nor did it help that, in the eyes of Guthrie, Fred Trump was a shameless bigot who leaned on race-baiting to make a buck.

“[Guthrie] thought that Fred Trump was one who stirs up racial hate, and implicitly profits from it,” American literature and culture professor Will Kaufman said.

Kaufman, who works at Great Britain’s University of Central Lancashire, was the one who discovered Guthrie’s unpublished anti-Trump writings and first brought the folk singer’s sentiments toward the real estate mogul to light. 

 While sifting through Guthrie’s archives in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Kaufman uncovered a notebook in which Guthrie had penned lyrics excoriating Trump. Wrote Guthrie:

 “I suppose Old Man Trump knows / Just how much / Racial Hate he stirred up / In the bloodpot of human hearts / When he drawed / The color line / Here at his / Eighteen hundred family project”

 

Elsewhere, Guthrie added:

“Beach Haven ain’t my home! / I just cain’t pay this rent! / My money’s down the drain! / And my soul is badly bent! / Beach Haven looks like heaven / Where no black ones come to roam! / No, no, no! Old Man Trump! / Old Beach Haven ain’t my home!”

 While Kaufman writes that it’s “unlikely [Guthrie was] aware of the murky background to the construction of his new home,” the folk singer was indeed onto something in his scathing evaluation of Trump. 

 

After the end of World War II, returning veterans like Guthrie were in need of housing, which in New York City pushed the construction of affordable public housing to center stage.

For a long time, Kaufman writes, cities and states with comparatively diminutive coffers had been the entities that financed public housing endeavors. This changed following the war, when Kaufman writes that the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) “finally stepped in to issue federal loans and subsidies for urban apartment blocks.” Fred Trump, Kaufman notes, was one of the first people in line to take advantage of them.

And take advantage he did — so much so that in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower ordered an investigation on the matter. William McKenna, who led the investigation, soon found that builders involved with the housing program would bestow lavish gifts to bureaucrats in charge of allocating government funds, particularly to a man named Clyde L. Powell, who oversaw money flows for Trump’s Beach Haven complex.

 Mckenna’s team discovered that Powell allowed Trump to start building the complex before it was officially approved — and permitted Trump to rent out rooms six months before he had to begin repaying his loans. 

 

By that time, Trump had made over a million dollars in rent, and taken a five percent fee of the complex’s cost, even though as the Daily Beast reports, it was earmarked for architectural work. Likewise, Trump marked up Beach Haven’s building costs by $3.7 million, a cool sum of money he presumably did not put to increased housing for World War II veterans.

Trump later testified before a Senate committee for his actions. Not unlike his son, during testimony Trump deflected accusations of wrongdoing onto those criticizing him. Indeed, Trump said the idea that he had committed a crime was “very wrong,” that “it hurt [him],” and that he — not those holding the hearing — should be frustrated, due to the “untold damage to [his] standing and reputation.”

Trump left the hearing unpunished.

Still, Trump’s unsavory behavior extended beyond pulling a fast one on the government. The real estate giant followed the FHA’s guidelines against “inharmonious uses of housing” to the T, guidelines which a Trump biographer calls a “code phrase for selling homes in white areas to blacks.”

 While Kaufman writes that Guthrie began lamenting the racist policies that turned Beach Haven into what Guthrie called “Bitch Havens” soon after his arrival, the folk singer would die before racial discrimination cases were brought against the Trump empire, now with Donald at the helm.

 

In 1973, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit that charged that “racially discriminatory conduct by Trump agents” had “created a substantial impediment to the full enjoyment of equal opportunity,” and thus violated language of the Fair Housing Act.

As Village Voice reporter Wayne Barrett summarized in 1979: 

 

“According to court records, four superintendents or rental agents confirmed that applications sent to the central [Trump] office for acceptance or rejection were coded by race. Three doormen were told to discourage blacks who came seeking apartments when the manager was out, either by claiming no vacancies or hiking up the rents. A super said he was instructed to send black applicants to the central office but to accept white applications on site. Another rental agent said that Fred Trump had instructed him not to rent to blacks. Further, the agent said Trump wanted “to decrease the number of black tenants” already in the development “by encouraging them to locate housing elsewhere.”

The Trumps, quick to attack the prosecutor for being a “hot-tempered white female” and calling the investigation “Gestapo-like,” filed a $100 million counterclaim and ultimately settled the case in 1975.

Guthrie, who succumbed to Huntington’s disease in 1967, was ahead of his time in his caustic appraisal of the Trump name. And, Kaufman notes, Guthrie would likely do the same with regards to the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee.

“Woody was always championing those who didn’t have a voice, who didn’t have any money, who didn’t have any power,” Kaufman told The New York Times. “There’s no doubt that he would have had maximum contempt for Donald Trump, even without the issue of race.” 

 

Federal workers feel betrayed and alone in Trump administration's chaotic purge by Andrea Hsu

 

It's been more than two weeks since Mike Macans learned — for the first time — that the Small Business Administration was firing him from his job as a disaster recovery coordinator based in Anchorage, Alaska.

Still, the government hasn't sent him the documents he needs to claim unemployment. He's gotten no official word on when his family's health insurance will be cut off.

"They locked me out of all my systems," says Macans. "The only place I've gotten any help is online — on frickin' Reddit."

The Trump administration has fired tens of thousands of federal workers over the past two weeks as part of a seemingly indiscriminate purge of probationary employees, typically those in their first or second year on the job.

 The mass firings have been marked by so much chaos and sloppiness that some agencies have recalled employees that they terminated days or even hours earlier.

 

Labor unions have asked a federal court in San Francisco to order the government to stop the firings and rescind the terminations that have already occurred. Attorneys in Washington, D.C., have filed a classwide complaint, asking the Office of Special Counsel to intervene.

Meanwhile, anger among the fired is on the rise.

"Don't abandon and villainize the very people that have served this country and work to bring services to our citizens," says Macans.

One piece of a broader strategy

The terminations are just one part of the Trump administration's broad effort to slash the federal workforce of 2.3 million people. In late January came an ultimatum to federal employees: Resign from your jobs with pay and benefits through September, or risk being laid off. It has put thousands across government on administrative leave, unable to do their work.

And this past weekend, billionaire Elon Musk — a special adviser to Trump — issued another ultimatum to remaining employees. 

 

In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Musk suggested that workers could lose their jobs if they didn't respond to an email blast from the Office of Personnel Management asking for a list of five things they did in the past week. With the legality of the ask in doubt, some agency leaders have told their employees not to respond.

Now jobless, Macans' top concern is health insurance. His wife, a cancer survivor, needs costly medications to keep her autoimmune disorder under control. The couple have a five-month old and a toddler.

 "Just the disregard for the impact that this has, on not only the employee but his whole family, is astounding," says Lara Macans, his wife.

 

A perfect fit for the job

Macans' job with the Small Business Administration was his second stint serving the country. His first was as an airborne infantryman with the U.S. Army, stationed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson outside Anchorage.

After five years in the Army, he took a job in security on Alaska's North Slope followed by a role in emergency management with the state government, a job that made him feel like he could really make a difference.

"Alaska has every possible disaster threat you could think of, from volcanoes to hurricane to tsunami, earthquake, fire, flood — you name it," he says.

Macans' job involved helping communities navigate state and federal grants to repair roads, bridges, buildings, dams, seawalls and other infrastructure. He quickly built a network in the disaster recovery space, including with people at FEMA and the Small Business Administration.

 

Then last August came an opportunity to fill a brand new position with the Small Business Administration. Macans was hired as recovery coordinator for Region 10, covering Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Idaho.

He describes it as "the phone-a-friend" for the region. He provided guidance after the initial shock of a disaster had passed, helping businesses build resilience and address other long-term needs.

His deep knowledge of Alaska's wild weather and terrain, as well as its diverse population, made him a perfect fit for the job.

"We had talked like — this is going to be your career. You're going to retire from this job," says Lara Macans. "That was really exciting."

Fired, unfired and fired again

Macans was first informed he was being terminated on Feb. 7. An email arrived in his inbox late that Friday afternoon with the subject line "Notification – Termination of Probationary Period."

An attached letter told him: "The Agency finds that that [sic] you are not fit for continued employment because your ability, knowledge and skills do not fit the Agency's current needs, and your performance has not been adequate to justify further employment at the Agency."

 

It gave him a termination date of Feb. 21.

Like so many federal employees who've been fired this month, Macans was stunned.

In his six months on the job, he'd had no complaints about his performance. His first evaluation, posted the following week, described him as "an exceptional asset to the Agency," someone who is "always up for a new challenge, completes work to a high standard, and proactively generates opportunities to build and maintain relationships that facilitate the delivery of SBA's disaster loan program."

 

When Lara, a part-time nurse, came home from her job that afternoon, she knew immediately something was wrong.

"That's when he dropped the bomb," she says. "I couldn't even believe it."

It was a bad weekend. Macans was angry. He couldn't sleep.

"You turn off the lights and try to go to sleep, and you're just left alone with your thoughts," he says. "There's nothing to do but stew."

 

hen on Monday came another surprise. A colleague told him something was up. More guidance was coming about the termination letters sent Friday.

"Sure enough, an hour or two later, we got that email that said it was sent in error, and as such, 'It is not currently in effect,'" Macans says. "Well, what does that mean?"

He wasn't too reassured. The following afternoon, he received a third notification, and then a fourth, confirming that he was, in fact, being terminated, effective close of business that same day, Feb. 11. The two letters were nearly identical.

"That is literally the last official correspondence regarding my employment status that I received from the SBA," he says. "There's absolutely no follow up."

Fortunately, Macans had gotten a head start on saving his employment files.

"Because they fired me and then unfired me, I immediately started forwarding everything I could to my personal email," he says.

 

He has appealed his termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board, the body set up to handle labor disputes within the federal workforce, though he's not optimistic he'll get his job back.

"Never felt more betrayed"

Meanwhile, Macans says his trust in government is shattered.

"I've never felt more betrayed in my entire life," he says.

He's sympathetic to the view that there should be changes to how government bureaucracy works and how money is spent.

"I think those are very fair criticisms of the government," he says. "I am trying to be part of the solution."

For now though, he has started looking for a new job.

"You know, family of four. We need a paycheck coming in, and we need health care," he says. "When it really comes down to it, I'll do whatever I need to do for them."

DEI programs are designed to help white people too – here’s how by Liza Bondurant & Breana Jamison

 

While diversity, equity and inclusion may on the surface seem focused on certain groups, in fact DEI programs benefit people from all walks of life – including white people.

President Donald Trump and other conservatives have increasingly attacked such initiatives as discriminatory based on the presumption that they benefit only students of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Most recently, Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, 2025, directing federal agencies, including the Department of Education, to eliminate support for DEI positions and projects. The order labels them “illegal and immoral discrimination” and “radical and wasteful.”

The impact of this sweeping order has been seismic across the U.S. government, private sector and in education in particular as universities have begun eliminating or rebranding their DEI programs and the Department of Education has removed any initiative and even any document or material that referenced diversity, equity or inclusion.

As professors of education who have studied DEI programs in higher education, we believe these attacks represent a misconception about which groups DEI higher education programs actually support. The reality is, DEI policies help a wide range of people access and succeed in college regardless of their racial or ethnic background.

Breaking down DEI funding by race

It’s a challenge to determine the exact percentages of federal DEI funding allocated to groups of students broken down by race and ethnicity. There is limited publicly available data.

 

Copy link

Email

X (Twitter)

Bluesky

Facebook179

LinkedIn

WhatsApp

Print

While diversity, equity and inclusion may on the surface seem focused on certain groups, in fact DEI programs benefit people from all walks of life – including white people.

President Donald Trump and other conservatives have increasingly attacked such initiatives as discriminatory based on the presumption that they benefit only students of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Most recently, Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, 2025, directing federal agencies, including the Department of Education, to eliminate support for DEI positions and projects. The order labels them “illegal and immoral discrimination” and “radical and wasteful.”

The impact of this sweeping order has been seismic across the U.S. government, private sector and in education in particular as universities have begun eliminating or rebranding their DEI programs and the Department of Education has removed any initiative and even any document or material that referenced diversity, equity or inclusion.

As professors of education who have studied DEI programs in higher education, we believe these attacks represent a misconception about which groups DEI higher education programs actually support. The reality is, DEI policies help a wide range of people access and succeed in college regardless of their racial or ethnic background.

Breaking down DEI funding by race

It’s a challenge to determine the exact percentages of federal DEI funding allocated to groups of students broken down by race and ethnicity. There is limited publicly available data.

One great story every day

Broadly speaking, a large majority of people within most racial and ethnic groups receive some kind of federal funding – some of which is connected to DEI programs. That includes 81% of Black students, 74% of American Indian/Alaska Native students, 72% of Hispanic or Latino students, 70% of white students, and 66% of Asian students, according to a 2023 report from the National Center for Education Statistics based on data during the 2019-20 academic year.

The center’s data does not indicate whether those grants were explicitly designated for DEI initiatives. For example, Pell Grants are need-based, but not explicitly DEI.

That said, DEI initiatives encompass a broad range of programs that support various underrepresented groups, including first-generation college students and students with disabilities. They also benefit women and veterans. Each of these groups invariably includes many white students.

 

First-generation students

At most universities, a portion of DEI funding is dedicated to programs designed to support the success of first-generation students, or students whose parents did not graduate from college.

DEI initiatives enhance first-generation students’ academic success by addressing their unique challenges, such as financial constraints, cultural adjustments and unfamiliarity with college environments. They do this through tailored support programs, inclusive learning communities and mentorship opportunities.

Research shows that first-generation students are likely to adopt what psychologists call performance avoidance goals – such as the fear of looking incompetent – so they play it safe and don’t try too hard, which can hinder their academic success. But DEI efforts such as faculty engagement programs and dorm communities that mix academics and social support help foster supportive environments that mitigate those challenges.

National data shows that 56% of college students are first-generation attendees. White students represent 46% of that group, more than any other single race.

Students with disabilities

People with disabilities make up the largest minority group in America – and represent a growing share of college students.

Disability access is a vital yet often overlooked component of DEI efforts, with 20.5% of undergraduate students reporting a disability. Many institutions address this through disability services, which ensure students receive such appropriate testing accommodations as extended exam times, classroom support and access to assistive technology.

Accommodations for individuals with both sensory and physical disabilities are universally accepted and ensure access to everyone regardless of their ability. DEI initiatives, particularly those focusing on accessibility and support services, play a pivotal role in ensuring students with disabilities have equal opportunities to succeed.

Given that disabilities affect people from every ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic background, the erasure of DEI programs that support them hurts all groups – and that includes white people, who made up 21.1% of all undergraduate students with disabilities in the 2019-20 academic year.

We believe it is particularly critical to fund programs that include students with disabilities because, in the past, public providers did not create equitable opportunities for all.

Before the passage of key legislation such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, students with disabilities were often excluded from mainstream educational settings or received inadequate support. Even since those laws were enacted, enforcement has been inconsistent, and gaps in accessibility persist today.

Women and veterans

In addition to those two groups, DEI programs also target women and veterans.

For women, who make up more than half of college students, they promote equity in male-dominated fields such as science, technology, engineering and math, and leadership roles in government, academia and the private sector.

For veterans, DEI programs provide tailored resources like academic support, mental health services and career transition assistance that recognize the unique challenges some of them face in higher education.

The GI Bill, which provides financial assistance to veterans pursuing higher education, has also gotten caught up in Trump’s DEI purge. While it wasn’t designed back in 1944 as a DEI initiative – and has often failed to ensure equitable access for Black veterans – the Department of Veterans Affairs has recently tried to provide targeted support to veterans of diverse backgrounds. Trump’s order ended those programs.

While veterans make up only 6% of undergraduate students, the majority of them – about 60% – are white, with 16% Black, 14% Hispanic and 3% Asian.

Close to home

Collectively, those groups and others have benefited from the over US$1 billion in grants the Education Department has allocated to DEI programs since 2021.

Diversity encompasses a lot more than just race, and that’s why DEI programs are intended to benefit a broad range of people who historically have been underrepresented at universities or have lacked support.

For both of us, the end of these types of programs hits close to home. One of us is white, and one of us is Black, but we’ve both benefited from DEI initiatives aimed at first-generation college students and women.

We also both have family members who are veterans or who have disabilities and who have received financial support and resources that made a significant difference in their ability to go to college.

Most American families – even if they don’t realize it – can tell a similar story of how programs aimed at diversity, equity and inclusion helped them achieve the American dream.

Trump’s order describes DEI programs as “illegal and immoral discrimination programs” and says Americans deserve “a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect.”

In our view, the orders are more likely to have the opposite effect.