Republicans may have had their worst crisis in generations in the late months of 2020 and the beginning of 2021. With Donald Trump losing the election, Republicans were concerned whether to support future MAGA ambitions or turn towards a moderate platform, in what could have possibly split the party. Even worse for them, Democrats gained control of the Senate, and held their control over the House of Representatives.

Four years laters, the tables have literally turned. Donald Trump successfully completed a costly and time-consuming campaign that returned him to the White House, winning every single swing state in the process. Notably, Republicans took control of the Senate, making legislation for Trump even easier to pass. After gaining control of the House in 2022, Republicans maintained their control in the 2024 elections. 

But for the Republican Party, their dreams and ambitions don’t end just there. For the GOP, California isn’t merely a state that is definitively blue. It’s their next target.

California has been a mixed state for Republicans. For example, California has kept Republicans as the minority party in the State Senate since 1970 and the State Assembly since 1994. Furthermore, a Republican hasn’t served as a senator for California since 1992, and Republicans barely hold over 20% of California seats in the House. That’s not to say that Republicans have failed at being successful - Richard Nixon served as a Senator from California in the 1950s, and both Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger served as the governor of California.

However, Republicans don’t want to look at the past when determining their future in the West Coast.

Perhaps the easiest way to see the success of Republicans is by looking at Proposition 36. This bill offered harsher penalties for crimes related to theft and drug trafficking, notably coming after record high crime rates during the pandemic. Gavin Newsome and fellow Californian Democrats attempted to shut down the policy, criticizing general crackdowns on crime as ineffective, yet 68% of voters said yes to the policy. 

Californians seem to be frustrated with the state of the economy. During the pandemic, gas prices were absurd, and inflation was shutting down businesses across the state. Voters were sure to express their frustrations in the elections. Despite 58% of votes going to Harris, it marks a sharp decline from 63.5% of votes going to Biden in 2020, and 61.7% of votes going to Clinton in 2016. The number is the lowest since 2004, signifying a major gain Republicans made after criticizing Biden for his “Bidenomics” approach, which Harris promised to continue. This was especially embarrassing for Harris, given that she represented California before as a Senator and grew up there.

The Republican attempt at influence in California will be a long, uphill battle. Given the recent results of Republicans- losing the Senate election and losing two seats in the House for California representatives - it would seem like an obvious thought for Republicans to not go after the Golden State, but they are anyways. And Democrats should be concerned.

Read more here:

• Zachary Faria, Washington Examiner

• James Bickerton, Newsweek

• Kelsey Vlamis, Business Insider

• Ryan Sabalow, CalMatters

• Eric McGhee and Jennifer Paluch, Public Policy Institute of California

It’s cliché, but few things are certain in life—save for death, taxes, and a bad tournament. (Sorry!) For over a century, nonprofits have been a bit luckier, with most eligible for tax-exempt status on income taxes. Naturally, this has been essential to the existence and survival of many nonprofits, especially smaller ones that operate on shoestring budgets.

But earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 9495 in a 219-184 vote, sending it to the Senate. The bill, innocuously entitled the “Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act,” superficially postpones tax filing deadlines for Americans held hostage abroad, an undeniably uncontroversial issue. However, it also grants the Secretary of the Treasury (who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate) the unprecedented authority to strip any nonprofit of tax-exempt status it claims supports terrorism. Under the bill, any organization placed under the new category of “terrorist supporting organizations” would have a mere 90 days to appeal the decision. Evidently, the president would indirectly wield an enormous amount of leverage over every single nonprofit in the country should the bill become law.

Should this bill be made law, it goes without saying that nonprofits that may be in opposition to incumbent administrations would be in a predicament. Organizations designated as “terrorist-supporting” would face difficulty in raising funds, as neither donors nor banks would want to be associated with them.

More importantly, the bill would likely bring about a wave of self-censorship by nonprofits. For example, pro-Palestinian nonprofits and student organizations, which have already faced threats from lawmakers in Congress over their opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza, would likely be forced to tone down or even end their advocacy to avoid being targeted.

The damage HR 9495 would do cannot be understated. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a nonprofit that frequently files lawsuits against the federal government for discriminatory policies, was behind everything from Obergefell v. Hodges (which legalized same-sex marriage federally) to the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education. As its very objective is to legally challenge the federal government, it would likely be among the first nonprofits to face backlash from whatever administration it targets. To ensure their financial security, the ACLU would almost certainly have to withdraw many key lawsuits, such as U.S. v. Skrmetti, a case regarding the right for trans youth to access gender-affirming care. (This is because the incoming Trump administration has signaled their intention to torpedo organizations and agencies that support such care.) Its cases involving other hot-button issues—such as migrant rights and gun control—would also likely be left by the wayside.

Granted, this bill is not guaranteed to become law under the current Congress. After all, Democrats currently have a Senate majority, and it is unclear if any Senate Democrats will cross the aisle to join Republicans in voting for it. However, the incoming GOP-controlled Congress that will take office in January is all but guaranteed to send the bill to will-be President Trump’s desk.

To be clear, this bill would be disastrous for democracy under any administration. The ability to essentially decapitate any critical nonprofit in a matter of months is exceedingly tempting. But with President-elect Trump, who has called the biggest threat to the United States “the enemy from within,” set to take office in less than two months, the future of advocacy in the Land of the Free is looking bleaker than ever. It’s high time we talk about this bill—because if we don’t, we soon probably won’t be able to.

Read more here:

• Minnah Arshad, USA Today

• Thalia Beaty and Farnoush Amiri, Associated Press

• Leila Fadel and Beth Gazley, NPR

• SCOTUSblog Case Files

After a stunning Election Night, Republicans have now swept the Presidency, Senate, and the House, giving them sweeping powers to pass legislation and implement their policy platform. They’re jubilant. Democrats, on the other hand, are scrambling to stay afloat. Their resounding election loss has left the party trying to regroup and discover what, precisely, went wrong-- was it their messaging? Were their policies too left-wing for the average American? Was their leadership outdated and unable to keep up with incoming President Trump?

The answer to that last question is throwing national Democratic leadership into quiet chaos. 

House Democrats, for example, are seriously weighing leadership changes that would oust aging lawmakers they don’t see as up to the task of countering Trump and his allies’ legislative priorities. Let’s take a look at a few places where Democratic leadership may shift in the next few months. 

Over the past few weeks, dozens of House Democrats have privately urged Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD) to challenge Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY) for his position as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Nadler, who is 77, led the Judiciary Committee’s efforts to hold Trump accountable for alleged abuses of power, and has no plans to currently step down. On the other hand, Mr. Raskin has developed a reputation for being more “aggressive, articulate, and shrewd” than Mr. Nadler, especially in his time as the top Democrat on the committee that investigated the Jan. 6 riots. Democrats pushing for Raskin to challenge Nadler hope that he’ll be better at promoting not just long-standing Democratic talking points, but also more progressive ideas. 

The Judiciary is expected to play a key role in Mr. Trump’s upcoming term, since it’ll be where the independence of the Justice Department is hashed out and what presidential powers truly entail. It is currently led by Republican Jim Jordan. 

76-year-old Arizona Representative Raúl Grijalva, the current ranking member on the Committee on Natural Resources, is facing a stiff challenge from 60-year-old Representative Jared Huffman of California. This Committee is responsible for overseeing agencies like the Department of Energy and Forest Service, as well as looking at all legislation pertaining to “American energy production, mineral lands and mining, fisheries and wildlife, public lands, oceans, Native Americans, irrigation and reclamation.”

Representative David Scott of Georgia on the Agriculture Committee, 79, has two challengers- Representative Jim Costa (CA), 72, and Representative Angie Craig (MN), 52. As farmers’ income has dropped to their lowest level in decades, this Committee’s Republicans will be crucial in carrying out Trump’s ambitious plan to reduce rising input costs associated with green energy policies and deregulate agriculture. 

Another national trend to look out for: potential Democratic presidential hopefuls for the 2028 election are already quietly staking out their own base of supporters. As Vice President Kamala Harris was campaigning across the country a month ago, other politicians including Illinois Gov. JB Priztker, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer traveled the nation, speaking at union meetings, chapels, and, importantly, even in solidly red states. They’re attempting to rebrand the Democratic Party as a party that’s truly for all voters and more bipartisan than ever. 

As long-shot DNC Chairman candidate, State Senator James Skoufis of New York, said in an interview with the New York Times, “the overwhelming sentiment is a desire to do things differently, to do things in a way that we’re not just underscoring the definition of insanity and repeating the same old mistakes over and over again. We need an outsider.”

Even if Democrats in the House, right now, are thinking more about surviving Donald Trump’s next term, it seems they are also subconsciously heeding Senator Skoufis’ advice-- without rethinking their political strategy, the Democratic Party may struggle to stay afloat. 

Read More Here: 

• Annie Karni, New York Times

• House Committee on Natural Resources

• Roger Marshall, Newsweek Opinion

• Reid Epstein, New York Times

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump will take office to serve as the 47th President of the United States. As the 47th President, his manifesto is titled “Agenda 47”, and like the name suggests, it contains his agenda for the future of America. Agenda 47 encompasses all sectors, from crime to healthcare to the economy. 

However, one sector’s plans have raised red flags nationwide and internationally, because this sector is America’s backbone: education. As the foundation for America’s youth, education is the keystone of our nation’s future, influencing everything from workforce readiness to global competition. The Department of Education is the federal agency responsible for encouraging educational excellence for all Americans. 

But President-elect Trump has been promising for years to eliminate this institution. In fact, 10 years ago, he said he would cut the Department of Education. In 2024,  he has kept his goals in mind – claiming that he “will ultimately eliminate the federal Department of Education.” Critics warn that dismantling the DOE could undermine America’s education system, deviating from helping schools prosper in any capacity.

At the top of the list, the agenda promises to favor school districts that abolish teacher tenure. Tenure for a teacher is generally considered three years of work in the same district, with an educational license. Individual states and universities have rules governing how long faculty can teach, providing “tenured” individuals with long-term job security. Critics of tenure argue that it makes it difficult to remove underperforming teachers, allowing schools more flexibility. However, eliminating tenure means teachers will face the constant threat of losing their jobs without justification, leading to increased stress and overall dissatisfaction. Additionally, tenured teachers actually improve education. The National Education Association reported that the largest gains in teacher effectiveness happen in the first 5 years of their teaching, so abolishing tenure would mean cutting 2+ years of essential experience – meaning decreased efficacy of teachers overall.

Furthermore, Agenda 47 compromises equitable access to education for many families. The upcoming administration is planning $200 billion in cuts to student aid, coming in the form of loans to students pursuing higher education. Specifically, Trump plans to eliminate certain types of federal student loans, change the repayment safety net, and cut student support to low-income students. His budget deal suggests eliminating Subsidized Stafford Loans, which prevent undergraduates with financial need from accumulating interest on their loans while they are in school, unemployed, or experiencing financial hardship. Over half of the families receiving loans from this program make less than $60,000 per year, and the program is most frequently leveraged by low and middle-income students. Programs like Title 1, Pell Grants, and Head Start are all under threat under Agenda 47, meaning that in future years, it’s going to become immensely difficult for low-income students to afford a postsecondary education without accruing significant amounts of debt. Given this, education will no longer be a right, but a privilege.

Beyond making education fundamentally inaccessible, Agenda 47 directly makes education unsafe. President-elect Trump has vocally supported teachers carrying weapons in school, proposing to bolster districts that hire armed guards. This will exacerbate violence already present within America’s school system. Between 2023-2024, gunfire on US school grounds led to 49 deaths and 116 injuries. Equipping teachers with firearms risks increased gunfire violence on campus, whether intentionally or unintentionally. For instance, an employee on Uvalde’s campus was approved to carry a concealed weapon as part of a school program. When he attempted to remove his sweater, his pistol fired close to a student. Permitting teachers in classrooms to keep guns in proximity runs the risk of accidental firearm violence becoming commonplace in American schools. Research has already confirmed that increased gun access, even for teachers, is not associated with protection from violence. Too many lives have been lost to the effects of gun violence, and schools cannot afford policies that will make education fatal.

Malcolm X once said that education is the passport to the future. If Agenda 47 becomes reality, America’s passport will be revoked, denied, and shredded.

Because America’s education system is more than just a collection of schools—it’s the backbone of a knowledgeable society and a competitive workforce. By undermining key pillars like teacher tenure, equitable access to education, and student safety, Agenda 47 actively disassembles the progress made over decades of educational reform. The Agenda’s promise of "great schools" is hollow when those schools are stripped of their ability to provide opportunities for every family and ensure safe learning environments for all students. What’s left is an education system that perpetuates inequality and places students and teachers alike in harm’s way. To allow such policies to prevail is to gamble with the futures of millions of young Americans.

Rejecting Agenda 47 means fighting for an education system that empowers all students to carry Malcolm X’s passport to the future. If we fail to act, we risk leaving America’s youth stranded at the gates of opportunity, with no path forward. 

Read more here:

• Lexi Lonas Cochran, The Hill

• Shauneen Miranda, Philly Voice