The disarmament community in their pursuit of global zero makes a number of faulty assumptions. For example, they assume all retaliatory uses of nuclear weapons will quickly lead to the massive exchange of nuclear weapons and trigger a civilization ending nuclear winter. They assume even the use of a single nuclear weapon could devastate a large area from EMP damage and cause widespread panic and mass migration and would escalate to an all-out nuclear exchange as well. In short, no nuclear use, however limited, can be managed or controlled.

Thus, even the current U.S. deterrence strategy of nuclear retaliation, often referenced as a secure, second-strike capability, is dismissed as unworkable.” Consequently, we are told the U.S. can no longer rely upon such a deterrent strategy, as it is dangerous, immoral and a highly unreliable “war fighting” strategy that will not keep nuclear weapons from being used.

The only alternative? Ban all nuclear weapons, as called for by the United Nations treaty outlawing nuclear weapons as agreed to by the UN General Assembly.

In short what the disarmament community has concluded is that nuclear deterrence as now practiced is really a bluff. No rational (“sane”?) American President would order any nuclear retaliatory strike. Since any retaliatory use of nuclear weapons would trigger wholesale nuclear war, such a response has to be discarded. This means that a nuclear armed adversary of the United States could first use nuclear weapons against the United States without fear of a proportionate United States military response. And for all intents and purposes this would leave the enemy’s nuclear forces in a sanctuary free from American retaliatory nuclear strikes.

Absent the current deterrent strategy, what then should the United States do in the face of China and Russia adopting a strategy of escalation to win, or using limited numbers of nuclear weapons to either forestall conventional defeat or secure conventional victory? [Let alone the threat of a massive, pe-emptive strike that worried the United States through much of the Cold War.] As many U.S. military officers have explained, this is serious business, as once nuclear weapons are introduced into a conventional conflict, all the United States assumptions about prevailing in a conventional conflict “don’t hold” or go out the window.

Now both Russia and China have often claimed to have a minimal deterrent strategy, and assert they would not use nuclear weapons first, and threaten only a massive retaliatory strike if hit with nuclear weapons. But then how to explain the decree issued by President Yeltsin in April 1999 declaring for Russia to build highly accurate low yield small battlefield nuclear weapons, plans which the current President (Mr. Putin) has implemented over the past 25 years? Or China’s threat to Japan to repeat the World War II atomic strikes should Japan come to the defense of Taiwan?

Similarly, the disarmament community has ignored the very large current Chinese buildup of nuclear weapons, even claiming hundreds of newly discovered silos were nothing more than prospective energy producing windmills. When subsequently American high ranking military officials confirmed the very real “breathtaking” Chinese build in Congressional testimony, the military brass were falsely accused of warmongering.

What is most dangerous is that advocates of zero nuclear weapons don’t tell us what is to replace current deterrent policy while nations figure out how to get to zero—even though that goal has not been formally adopted by any power possessing nuclear weapons. Without deterrence of any kind, the likelihood of nuclear weapons use will actually increase as the current deterrent strategy would be revealed as just bluff. Especially at a time when America’s enemies are markedly building up their nuclear forces and increasing the salience of nuclear weapons in their national security strategies.

Worse however is the juvenile idea that diplomacy can substitute for current deterrent strategy. But diplomacy leading to what? If China and Russia threaten to use limited nuclear strikes for coercive purposes, what “diplomacy” changes that? As Dr. Kissinger once explained, “A free standing diplomacy is an ancient American illusion. History offers few examples of it. The attempt to separate diplomacy and power results in power lacking direction and diplomacy being deprived of incentives.” Or in a pithier manner, as Senator Malcolm Wallop put it, “Diplomacy without the threat of force is but prayer.” If the United States takes its nuclear forces off the deterrent table, whatever diplomacy we might exercise is going to ring hollow.

Advocates of better diplomacy argue that diplomacy is meant to help us discover the “underlying causes” of why nations have nuclear weapons. It is assumed the U.S. can root out the reason China and Russia are building larger nuclear arsenals just by talking to them.

Well, the United States would first have to figure out the origins of the CCP’s hegemonic ambitions. And its declaration that the moon and Mars to say nothing of Taiwan and the South China Sea, are Chinese territory! Or Russian centuries old paranoia that believes the only secure Russian borders are those that perpetually expand. Or why the end of the USSR was a great tragedy.

If one explores the disarmament literature, the most common explanation for Russia and China’s aggressive stance in world affairs is that “America made them do it” an interesting version of Ambassador Kirkpatrick’s 1984 refrain “They always blame America first.””

There are six common complaints by the global zero advocates.

First the United States started an arms race, although we simply replaced legacy nuclear forces allowed by the 2010 New Start agreement.

Second, the United States built or will build 44-66 missile defense interceptors in Alaska and California, although it is perplexing how dozens of interceptor missiles somehow threaten multiple hundreds and even thousands of enemy warheads.

Third, the U.S. was mean to North Korea, although all the U.S. did was call them out for cheating on the Agreed Framework.

Fourth, the U.S. withdrew from the INF treaty, although Russia was serially violating the treaty terms.

Fifth, the United States withdrew from the JCPOA, but that was because Iran never came clean, as required, on its nuclear military activities.

Sixth, Washington too energetically supports the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Israel, but since when was helping your democratic allies a sin.

Given this mindset, it is not a wonder that the “solutions” pushed by the disarmament community to jumpstart a movement towards global zero start with unilateral USA concessions which, just coincidentally, involve taking down USA nuclear capability whether cancelling the LRSO, the Sentinel or Minuteman III, the JSF or F-35, the SLCM-N, or the B-61 warhead. And not proceeding with any missile defense, dropping our hostile policy toward Iran and North Korea, and restore the INF and the JCPOA.

In short diminishing USA nuclear capability just as China and Russia are markedly expanding their nuclear capability is somehow going to turn out as a successful strategy that reduces strategic instability and magically restores deterrence. Although such unilateral restraint has never previously worked. And weakness is provocative and can lead to war. And a United States shed of a deterrent strategy will indeed be perceived as weak.

---

Peter R. Huessy is President of Geo-Strategic Analysis and Senior Fellow, National Institute for Deterrent Studies.

A family owned plumbing corporation in Illinois is being forced into court after cops confiscated a company truck when it was hit in a traffic accident, and have refused to return it to the owners. For more than a year.

The Liberty Justice Center has released a report on the fight against the Winnebago County sheriff’s office and the local state’s attorney, “for illegally seizing and indefinitely holding – for 15 months so far – the property of First Supply, LLC, simply because it was an innocent bystander to an auto accident.”

“The government cannot take your property without a warrant or warrant exception—let alone indefinitely and without giving you any way to get it back—just because you were an innocent bystander to someone else’s alleged crime,” explained Loren Seehase, of LJC. “We look forward to vindicating the Fourth Amendment rights of First Supply and all innocent crime victims and bystanders.”

Company lawyer Brittney Corrillaud said, “It was hard enough to have our delivery driver be involved in a fatal car accident. But to indefinitely lose our truck to impoundment hampers our ability to make a profit and pay our employees. We never could have expected that months would pass without getting it back, and now we pay thousands of dollars a month extra just to serve our customers. To add insult to injury, we’ve spent hours trying to retrieve our property only to be passed from person to person at the state’s attorney’s office, ignored by the prosecutor, and offered no support.”

The war was triggered in January 2024 when an alleged drunk driver ran a red light and crashed his vehicle into a First Supply delivery truck which was stopped, legally, at a stop light.

“Tragically, the driver’s passenger was killed on impact. First Supply was in no way responsible for the accident—but the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office seized First Supply’s truck from the scene as evidence, without a warrant, and without any exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless seizure,” the report said.

Then, in months following, while First Supply complied with the law enforcement investigation, the truck remained locked up.

At one point a sergeant said the sheriff’s investigators were finished with the truck, but still the truck was not released.

The traffic case even was dismissed without the truck’s release, and then a new criminal case was filed.

“During this entire process, neither the sheriff’s office nor the state’s attorney’s office contacted First Supply to return the truck. In fact, at no point during this entire ordeal has either office provided First Supply a process, procedure, or even a timeline as to when it can get its truck back,” the legal team charged.

So for 15 months the company has been paying for a truck it cannot use, as well as a replacement.

LJC said it now has a lawsuit pending over the confiscation of the vehicle, and it cites the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.

Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-SC) revealed on social media Saturday that she was confronted by a man inside a makeup store in what she characterized as a politically motivated incident.

“Some unhinged lunatic, a man, wearing daisy dukes, at a makeup store, got in my face today. Dems are nuts. So I went off — and I won’t be backing down,” Mace posted on X.

“I hold the line 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Try me.”

The video—attached to her post and now going viral— shows a man confronting the congresswoman with questions about her schedule of town halls. The situation quickly escalated into a tense verbal exchange between the two.

The man, who has not been publicly identified, repeatedly asked whether Mace planned to hold more town hall events this year. Mace responded that she had hosted over a dozen in previous years and accused the man of harassment.

The exchange became increasingly confrontational, with both individuals raising their voices and using profanity.

Below is a full transcript of the exchange:

Nancy Mace:
I do them every year.

Leftist:
Every year?

Nancy Mace:
You want to keep going?

Leftist:
Are you going to do any more this year?

Nancy Mace:
Do you want to keep going? Keep harassing me?

Leftist:
I’m asking if you’re going to have more town halls this year.

Nancy Mace:
You could have gone to a dozen town halls last year.

Leftist:
I asked if you’re doing any more this year. It was one simple question.

Nancy Mace:
Yeah.

Leftist:
Are you doing a town hall this year?

Nancy Mace:
I’ve already done one. I’ll do plenty more.

Leftist:
Are you doing any more this year? It was a simple question.

Nancy Mace:
You’re always invited.

Leftist:
Okay, that’s great. Well, let me have an actual invitation.

Trending: Democrat Judge in New Mexico Abruptly Resigns After Suspected Tren de Aragua Gang Member Found with Firearm at His Home

Nancy Mace:
And by the way, I voted for gay marriage twice.

Leftist:
What does that have to do with me?

Nancy Mace:
So I’m just saying it has everything to do with you.

Leftist:
Do you think everything about me has to do with gay marriage?

Nancy Mace:
I do. Absolutely.

Leftist:
That’s your first chance when you speak with me?

Nancy Mace:
Absolutely.

Leftist:
There’s no other humane conversation you can have about me?

Nancy Mace:
If you don’t want to get in my face about town halls, you should have shown up to one last year.

Leftist:
There’s no other humane thing you can talk about me? Just saying, “Oh, I support gay marriage”? That’s the only thing you have to say?

Nancy Mace:
Because you’re getting in my face about a town hall. You could have gone last year.

Leftist:
I was going to ask you one simple question from right over here. If you have any plans to have more town halls this year?

Nancy Mace:
I have town halls every year. I have over a dozen every year.

Leftist:
That was my entire question. You didn’t have…

Nancy Mace:
You could have come to any of them last year. I had over a dozen.

Leftist:
I’m asking you about this year, not 2024.

Nancy Mace:
Where were you the year before that? Or the year before that?

Leftist:
It was a simple question. I asked if you had any more that you’re going to this year or not.

Nancy Mace:
Oh, because you know what? Because you people on the Left are crazy. You’re absolutely f***ing crazy.

Leftist:
I’m absolutely f***ing crazy?

Nancy Mace:
You are. And get out of my face. You’re insane. Goodbye. You’re insane. F*** you.

Leftist:
You’re going to f*** me? You’re going to be voted out so fast this year. I can’t wait for you to f***ing go into the term.

Nancy Mace:
I’m not. I’m not. I won by so much.

Leftist:
You’re a disgrace to this state, that’s who you are. You’re a disgrace. I asked you a simple question, and you just go on this tirade and tell me, “F*** you”?

Nancy Mace:
Yeah, f*** you.

Leftist:
Disgusting.

Nancy Mace:
Get out of my face.

Leftist:
F*** you.

Nancy Mace:
Get out of my face. Try it again. What’s your name?

Leftist:
You’re a nasty b****.

Nancy Mace:
What’s your name?

Leftist:
You’re a nasty b****. That’s the first thing you’re going to say to me? “F*** me” for asking you a question?

Nancy Mace:
Absolutely. Get the f*** out of my face.

Leftist:
F*** you.

Nancy Mace:
F*** you. You couldn’t take me on, baby. Stay the f*** away from me.

WATCH:

Some unhinged lunatic, a man, wearing daisy dukes, at a makeup store, got in my face today. Dems are nuts. So I went off – and I won’t be backing down.

I hold the line 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Try me. pic.twitter.com/Uv181Ovys0

— Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) April 19, 2025

The video has since prompted strong reactions online, with supporters praising Mace for standing her ground and critics calling her response inappropriate.

The Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday Maryland parents’ challenge to a ban on opting their young children out of storybook readings about pride parades, gender transitions and drag queens.

The predominantly Muslim and Christian parents behind the case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, argue the Montgomery County Board of Education is infringing on their free exercise rights under the First Amendment.

“New government-imposed orthodoxy about what children are ‘supposed’ to think about gender and sexuality is not a constitutional basis to sideline a child’s own parents,” the parents, backed by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, wrote in their petition.

Books elementary school teachers read to students include “Pride Puppy,” which asks students to look for images of items like “underwear” and the name of a “controversial LGBTQ activist and sex worker,” and “Intersection Allies,” which asks students to consider questions like what it means to be transgender, according to court documents.

While the school board initially allowed parents with religious objections to opt their children out of the program, it later changed its decision and declined to even offer parental notice.

Opt-outs are available for sex ed classes mandated in high school, yet the district denies opt-outs for the “LGBTQ-inclusive” storybooks it required for elementary students in just 2022, according to parents’ petition. The parents sued in May 2023.

“Our nation has a long tradition of respecting parents’ right to decide when and how to introduce their children to such sensitive topics, and we are confident the Court will uphold that enduring freedom here,” Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, said in a statement.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found 2-1 last year that the parents’ free exercise rights were not burdened because the school board had not compelled them to “change their religious beliefs or conduct.”

“[S]imply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires,” the court held.

The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in January.

The district argues that there is “no evidence that any parent or child was penalized for his or her religious beliefs, asked to affirm any views contrary to his or her faith, or otherwise prohibited or deterred from engaging in religious practice.”

The Trump administration, in a brief backing the parents, wrote that the lower court “overlooks that the relevant religious practices are parents’ sincere beliefs.”

“The Board’s policy requires parents to ‘shed their religious beliefs,’ about how to raise their children within their faiths: They cannot subject their children to the schools’ instruction regarding the storybooks without violating those beliefs,” they wrote.

Mahmoud v. Taylor is one of several religious liberty cases at the Supreme Court this term. In March, the justices heard a case brought by Catholic Charities, which challenged Wisconsin’s decision to deny it an unemployment tax exemption for religious organizations.

The justices will also consider a challenge to the country’s first religious charter school — which the Oklahoma Supreme Court found violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause — on April 30.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A top Republican senator says the federal district judge who has opposed President Donald Trump’s deportation flights of violent, criminal illegal aliens apparently wants to be president instead of his current position on the bench.

“It can’t be like getting an act of Congress every time you want to export a dangerous violent felon illegal immigrant,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said on “Sunday Morning Futures” on the Fox News Channel.

“And yet, you’ve got people like Judge [James] Boasberg who apparently wish they had gone into politics and would rather be serving as president of the United States than a federal district judge who are essentially cosplaying as chief executive officers of the United States government.”

“The minute you start to have judicial officers performing the tasks that belong fundamentally to the either the executive or legislative branch, you’ve got a problem. And I’m hoping the Supreme Court can help us get this cleared up and cleaned up quickly.”

Lee noted: “We’ve been flooded with millions, some would say tens of millions, of illegal immigrants.”

Today, exclusively on @SundayFutures with @MariaBartiromo, Senator Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee @SenMikeLee spoke with guest host Jason Chaffetz @jasoninthehouse about the Supreme Court set to hear arguments in a case over birthright citizenship.@FoxNews pic.twitter.com/grlPeZyh3P

— SundayMorningFutures (@SundayFutures) April 20, 2025

The senator also expressed support for Trump’s efforts to change the way birthright citizenship is handled in America.

Is the news we hear every day actually broadcasting messages from God? The answer is an absolute yes! Find out how!

“What President Trump has done is issue an executive order directing agencies prospectively, not to recognize the birthright citizenship … unless at the time of their birth they had at least one parent who was either a citizen or a lawful permanent resident,” Lee explained.

“This is a close question. It’s a debatable case, and I think it could go either way. I look forward to hearing the arguments and I hope the Supreme Court will sustain what President Trump is trying to do to clean up this invasion that President Biden invited into our country.”

“Ideally we should pass legislation,” he added. “Harry Reid who later became the Senate Democratic majority leader introduced in 1993 legislation that would do what essentially President Trump is trying to do by executive order.”

Lee also voiced support for the SAVE Act requiring identification is provided by voters.

“We want to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat,” he said.

Follow Joe on X @JoeKovacsNews

PALM BEACH, Florida – President Trump on Sunday issued a harshly toned Easter greeting to his political enemies, including former President Joe Biden, whom he called a “Moron.”

Happy Easter to all, including the Radical Left Lunatics who are fighting and scheming so hard to bring Murderers, Drug Lords, Dangerous Prisoners, the Mentally Insane, and well known MS-13 Gang Members and Wife Beaters, back into our Country,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

“Happy Easter also to the WEAK and INEFFECTIVE Judges and Law Enforcement Officials who are allowing this sinister attack on our Nation to continue, an attack so violent that it will never be forgotten!

“Sleepy Joe Biden purposefully allowed Millions of CRIMINALS to enter our Country, totally unvetted and unchecked, through an Open Borders Policy that will go down in history as the single most calamitous act ever perpetrated upon America.

“He was, by far, our WORST and most Incompetent President, a man who had absolutely no idea what he was doing — But to him, and to the person that ran and manipulated the Auto Pen (perhaps our REAL President!), and to all of the people who CHEATED in the 2020 Presidential Election in order to get this highly destructive Moron Elected, I wish you, with great love, sincerity, and affection, a very Happy Easter!!!”

With more uplifting messages, Trump issued separate holiday greetings for Christians commemorating the resurrection of Jesus.

“Melania and I would like to wish everyone a very Happy Easter!” he exclaimed.

“Whether you are heading out to Church or, watching Service from home, may this day be full of Peace and Joy for all who celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. HE IS RISEN!!”

He also said: We are, together, going to make America bigger, better, stronger, wealthier, healthier, and more religious, than it has ever been before!!! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!”

Is the news we hear every day actually broadcasting messages from God? The answer is an absolute yes! Find out how!

Follow Joe on X @JoeKovacsNews

China is reaching out to the world to make trade deals amid President Donald Trump’s push to isolate the nation by dishing out massive tariffs.

So far, China has made inroads with Vietnam, Malaysia and Europe amid Trump’s tariffs threatening to stifle the economy of the world’s second largest market. Trump’s tariffs, which have now risen to a whopping total of 245% for some goods, aim to cripple China by cutting access to its largest export partner and cut off the nation from other trading partners, sources told the Wall Street Journal Tuesday.

“This is the first time that anyone of any consequence has stood up and said, ‘no more,’” Stephen Yates, senior research Fellow for China and National Security Policy at the Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We are going to renegotiate the terms of our engagement in a way that is more fair to my country’s interests, and there are some priorities that you’re going to have to address.”

Vietnam accounts for nearly 4% of all exports from China in 2023, totaling $135 billion worth in goods, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) data. Vietnam signed a trade deal with China during Xi Jinping’s visit Monday, further strengthening the two communist country’s ties.

Vietnam is also a large U.S. trade partner, exporting over $136 billion of goods to the states in 2024, according to U.S. Census data.

Malaysia netted around 1.91% of all Chinese exports with a value of $65.5 billion in 2023. Xi Jinping stressed cooperation between the two nations Wednesday, with Malaysia also supplying the CCP with nearly 66% of its crude oil exports in 2023.

“Beijing believes it has advantages in its neighboring region and Trump’s volatile policy is harming America’s credibility and soft power in Asia,” Zhao Minghao, professor of international studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, told the WSJ.

China has also shown an interest in partnering with Europe amid Trump’s tariffs, with Beijing being the second largest trading partner with the EU behind the U.S. Recently, The EU considered dropping tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, instead setting minimum prices on the products.

China’s economy was already in a precarious position before the onset of the trade war, in part due to an ongoing struggle to fix a dismal real estate market and a rapidly aging population. Moreover, China is struggling to find buyers for its large sums of cheap goods it once sent to the U.S. en masse.

Trump signed an executive order Wednesday directing Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick to investigate the possibility and feasibility of new tariffs on “critical minerals,” which include cobalt, lithium, nickel and others frequently used to produce advanced goods.

“China seems to think it can survive without the United States making substantial investments in China,” Yates told the DCNF. “It doesn’t seem to believe that after tariffs, COVID, fentanyl and other activities, America and others just might be serious about re-balancing our supply chains. So they seem to be not in a panic, but somewhat arrogant, if you ask me.”

The Department of Commerce did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Several states are promising to resist the Trump administration’s effort to root out divisive diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)  initiatives from schools.

The Department of Education (ED) in February sent a directive to state education chiefs reminding them that they are bound by civil rights laws and cannot make admission or hiring decisions or host exclusionary programs based on race. Now, several states are signaling opposition to the administration’s latest request, issued April 3, requiring all states receiving federal education funds t0 provide proof that DEI initiatives are not in use as a condition for continued federal financial assistance.

New York state was one of the first to push back against the administration, with New York Schools Counsel and Deputy Commissioner Daniel Morton-Bentley stating in a letter to ED that the state would not comply as “there are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.”

The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) similarly vowed noncompliance with the federal directive in a letter sent by Minnesota Department of Education Commissioner Willie Jett. “MDE has long followed federal law in implementing federal programs. There is nothing unlawful in the principles underlying programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. Indeed, ED has long supported these principles,” Jett wrote in the letter to the administration.

ED initially said that schools must prove compliance within 10 days of the April 3 memo, warning that noncompliance would risk the loss of federal funding or a referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ), though ED extended the deadline to April 24. Sixteen states thus far have declined to certify that “illegal” DEI practices are not in use, according to Education Week, though the states did claim compliance with Title VI.

“Federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right,” Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said in ED’s memo. “When state education commissioners accept federal funds, they agree to abide by federal antidiscrimination requirements. Unfortunately, we have seen too many schools flout or outright violate these obligations, including by using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of Title VI.”

Shortly after ED sent the April 3 memo, Democrat Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson threatened to sue the Trump administration if it attempted to cut the $1.3 billion in federal funding it received for the current academic year, saying, “It’s unconstitutional to disrupt freedom of speech.” The federal funding accounts for roughly 16% of the district’s annual budget.

The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) further sent a letter to ED arguing that the state has already certified its Title VI compliance and claiming that the administration’s directive was “unclear” as to which programs it seeks to regulate. “Although the letter references ‘certain DEI practices’ or ‘illegal DEI,’ it does not define it, and there are no federal or State laws prohibiting diversity, equity, or inclusion,” ISBE’s letter states.

Chicago Public Schools still maintains an “Office of Equity,” which includes a DEI resource guide aiming to “assist school teams in their DEI planning.” Some of the resources listed provide information on “improv[ing] diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training and hiring practices in schools.”

The California Department of Education also questioned the authority of the federal government to request that officials end all use of DEI practices, instructing schools within the state not to respond to the administration’s letter. The state receives roughly $16.3 billion each year in federal funding, according to the Los Angeles Times.

In an April 11 letter sent to ED, California’s Chief Deputy Supt. David Schapira wrote, “There is nothing in state or federal law … that outlaws the broad concepts of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion.’”

“Just because [President Donald] Trump ordered it, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen,” Noelle Ellerson Ng, a legislative advocate for the School Superintendents Association, told California school administrators in February. “Executive orders on their own can’t really accomplish much … There’s a distinct difference between activity and productivity.”

California has already found itself in the hot seat with Trump’s ED as the department investigates several of the state’s universities for allegedly using race as a factor for admission despite the 2023 Supreme Court ruling banning affirmative action policies.

A 2022 report found that California spent roughly $500 million on DEI initiatives over the span of a few years, including topics such as “racial equity” workshops and employee training. Several school districts in the state are also under federal investigation for allegedly allowing children to change their gender identity while at school without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

Meanwhile, Michigan’s State Superintendent of Public Instruction Michael Rice wrote to the Trump administration on April 10 claiming that schools in the state were already in compliance and that further certification was “unnecessary.” In a letter sent to local superintendents the same day, Rice affirmed that the state does practice DEI, but insisted that the practice is fully legal.

“[M]any efforts to promote programs that support diversity and inclusion seek to expand opportunities, not limit them, and therefore do not discriminate,” Rice wrote on April 10. “Many of the activities that fall under the broad banner of diversity, equity, and inclusion are not zero sum … but rather positive sum. In other words, in these positive-sum activities, there are no preferences per se and by extension no losers, no illegal discrimination, and no Title VI violations associated therewith.”

Not long after the February memo was sent, the School Superintendents Association (AASA), which “serves as the national voice for public education” and is made up of school administrators from across the nation, advised school districts to ignore the guidance. Higher education groups, such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as well as policy-advising organizations like the American Council on Education (ACE) told institutions to resist the department’s request, with AAUP stating, “We must vigorously oppose the assault on our education.”

“To be abundantly clear, Dear Colleague letters are not law,” Ted Mitchell, president of ACE, said at a policy briefing Tuesday, according to Inside Higher Ed. “They are simply statements of intent by executive agencies about how they intend to interpret the law. And so overcompliance, anticipatory compliance, pre-emptive compliance, is not a strategy. The strategy needs to be much more considered, much more nuanced.”

While individual states and local officials may feel confident in their interpretation of Title VI, the move to shield DEI policies places millions of dollars in funding from the federal government, at least temporarily, on the line.

“[T]he Department’s request for certification is not controversial: When schools accept federal funding, they are obligated to uphold federal civil rights laws,” Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications for ED, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Similarly, the Department of Education has a responsibility to ensure that educational entities are protecting students’ civil rights. The Department is merely asking states to verify their compliance with this basic responsibility, which they should have been able to do every year since 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was signed into law.”

The Trump administration has a track record of upholding its promise to cut funding for noncompliance with federal directives. Several universities have become the targets of such funding cuts over allegedly failing to adequately address antisemitism complaints on campus.

Trump’s administration similarly followed through on a promise to revoke federal funds for Maine if the state continued to allow males to compete in female sports. Maine responded by suing the administration over what it claims is the “blatantly unlawful” act of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) “freezing federal funds allocated to Maine to feed schoolchildren.” The administration clarified that the frozen funds would not affect federal feeding programs or direct assistance.

ED has since pulled all K-12 funding from Maine and referred it to the DOJ after several warnings. The DOJ has since filed a lawsuit against the state over its continuous noncompliance.

DEI initiatives were heavily promoted under the Biden administration, which spend roughly $600 million on diversity training programs for teachers alone, which instructed them to “to take personal and institutional responsibility for systemic inequities” and acknowledge “systemic forms of oppression and inequity, including racism, ableism, ‘gender-based’ discrimination, homophobia, and ageism.”

Millions of taxpayer dollars were also poured into pushing topics such as “climate literacy,” or climate change, “LGBTQ inclusion” and “anti-racism and anti-oppression” in schools. Over $100 million worth of grants went to universities meant to train K-12 social workers in critical race theory, social justice and DEI.

Since returning to office, Trump has worked to root out DEI initiatives as well as lesson on critical race theory from schools and federal agencies, signing several executive orders banning the use of federal funding to support such topics, such as the day one order “ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing.” Hundreds of documents outlining DEI practices have been scrubbed from the ED’s website, staff members have been placed on administrative leave and all DEI training has been halted under Trump’s direction, with widespread support from voters.

The New York, Illinois, Minnesota and California Education Departments did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Several Democrat lawmakers refused to answer why they voted against a measure to ensure that non-citizens cannot vote in U.S. elections in footage exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Only four Democrat lawmakers joined Republicans to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require states to obtain proof of citizenship before registering an individual to vote and remove all non-citizens from existing voter rolls. Several lawmakers who voted against the legislation either refused to tell the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) why they seemingly support non-citizens voting in elections or claimed that the idea is a myth.

“Congresswoman, why do you want non-citizens to vote in U.S. elections?” an individual with the NRCC asked Democrat Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who ignored the question. “Why do you not want to keep American elections safe and secure?

Among those asked were Democrat Reps. Mark Takano of California, Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Greg Caser of Texas, Eric Sorenson of Illinois, Tom Suozzi of New York, Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick and Lateefah Simon of California.

WATCH:

Suozzi said the idea that non-citizens vote in U.S. elections is a “myth” spread by Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk.

“I don’t want that,” Suozzi said. “That’s actually a myth that, what’s his name, Elon Musk was on a show where he was talking about non-citizens voting in New York. It’s just not true.”

Cherfilus-McCormick, Caser and Jared Moskowitz of Florida also said they do not want non-citizens to vote in U.S. elections.

However, non-citizens participating in recent U.S. elections does not appear to be a myth. In August, government officials in Alabama, Virginia, Ohio and Texas identified as many as 17,000 non-citizens on state voting rolls and worked to remove them from the lists ahead of the 2024 general election.

America First Legal, a Washington, D.C.-based organization aligned with the Trump administration, sued Maricopa County, Arizona, in August, after the county had allegedly failed to remove 35,000 registered voters from its voter rolls who did not provide proof of citizenship. The lawsuit prompted all 15 counties in Arizona to verify and remove voters from the voter rolls, including nearly 50,000 registrants who did not provide proof of citizenship, Fox News first reported.

After Oregon resumed automatic voter registration, the Oregon Driver & Motor Vehicle Services division found 118 non-citizens on its voter rolls, and at least 13 of them had voted, according to Willamette Week. In September, the DMV had mistakenly sent the names of 1,619 people to the Elections Division to be added to voter rolls. In that group, at least 17 people voted.

Angelica Maria Francisco and Carlos Abreu, two illegal immigrants from Guatemala and the Dominican Republic, pleaded guilty to falsely identifying themselves as American citizens and voting in U.S. federal elections. A Chinese national allegedly registered to vote and cast a ballot in the 2024 general election, according to statements made in October by Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office and the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s office.

Former President Joe Biden’s administration fought against states that worked to remove non-citizens from its voter rolls. The Biden-led Justice Department sued Virginia and Alabama to prevent the states from taking such an action.

The Democrats who voted in favor of the SAVE Act were Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington and Ed Case of Hawaii.

The NRCC told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Democrats are refusing to explain why they treat “our sacred ballot box like an open border.”

“Democrats continue denying reality to explain their pathetic votes against requiring proof of citizenship to vote. The American people deserve better than these Democrats who treat our sacred ballot box like an open border,” NRCC spokesperson Ben Petersen said.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.