Teachers Unions Blast Trump Plan to 'Steal Money' From Public Schools for Vouchers


"Every student deserves fully funded neighborhood public schools that give them a sense of belonging and prepare them with the lessons and life skills they need to follow their dreams and reach their full potential."


Teacher Hope Manuel talks with students on their first day of third grade at Moulton Elementary School in Laguna Niguel, California on August 20, 2024.
(Photo: Paul Bersebach/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Jan 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Leaders of the nation's two largest teachers unions on Wednesday sharply criticized U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order that would direct federal funding toward enabling families to send their children to private rather than public K-12 schools.

Before the White House released the order Wednesday evening, multiple media outlets obtained and reported on related documents and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on Fox News that Trump intended to sign that order and others.

In response to reporting on Trump's order promoting "school choice," as right-wing advocates call it, the National Education Association (NEA)—the largest U.S. teachers union, representing over 3 million workers— released a statement lambasting the president's plan to "steal money from public school students to fund private school vouchers."

NEA president Becky Pringle declared that "every student deserves fully funded neighborhood public schools that give them a sense of belonging and prepare them with the lessons and life skills they need to follow their dreams and reach their full potential. Instead of stealing taxpayer money to fund private schools, we should focus on public schools—where 90% of children, and 95% of children with disabilities, in America, attend—not take desperately needed funds away from them. If we are serious about doing what is best for students, let's reduce class sizes to give our students more one-on-one attention and increase salaries to address the teacher and staff shortages."

"The bottom line is vouchers have been a catastrophic failure everywhere they have been tried," she continued. "President Trump is using his Project 2025 playbook to privatize education because he knows vouchers have repeatedly been a failure in Congress. Parents, educators, and voters know what students need—and vouchers are never the solution. In fact, when voters have a say about vouchers, they have been soundly rejected—time and again—at the ballot box. Just this past November, voters in Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska overwhelmingly said no to vouchers."

"We know vouchers take money away from neighborhood public schools. We know students with disabilities depend on these same public schools. We know that voucher programs leave out wide swaths of students, especially Black and brown students as well as those living in rural areas with no or limited access to private schools. And we know this stunt is meaningless without the consent of Congress," she said. "So, we are putting all anti-public education politicians on notice: If you try to come for our students, for our schools, and for our communities, NEA members will mobilize and will defeat vouchers again."



Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which has 1.8 million members, similarly stressed that "Americans of all political stripes want safe and welcoming public schools where kids are engaged and have the knowledge and skills to thrive in careers, college, and life. This plan is a direct attack on all that parents and families hold dear; it's a ham-fisted, recycled, and likely illegal scheme to diminish choice and deny classrooms resources to pay for tax cuts for billionaires."

"We already know that vouchers go mostly to wealthy families whose kids are already in private school. This order hijacks federal money used to level the playing field for poor and disadvantaged kids and hands it directly to unaccountable private operators—a tax cut for the rich," she explained. "It diminishes community schools and the services they provide. It dilutes crucial literacy and arts education grants. It takes an ax to the Department of Defense schools that are a global model for student success. It weakens Bureau of Indian Education schools already struggling due to underfunding and neglect."

Specifically, according to CBS News, "the executive order directs the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, to submit a plan to Mr. Trump for how military families can use Defense Department funds to send their kids to the school of their choosing."

"More broadly, it directs the Department of Education to prioritize school choice programs through its discretionary grant programs, and orders the Department of Health and Human Services to issue guidance on how states receiving block grants for families and children can use those funds to support private and faith-based institutions," the outlet reported.

CBS added:

The executive order also directs the Department of Education to issue guidance to states on how to use federal funding formulas—which determine how much money to allocate to districts and schools—to support their K-12 scholarship programs.

The interior secretary, when confirmed, must also submit a plan to the president outlining how families with students at Bureau of Indian Education schools can use federal money to send those children to a school of their family's choosing. About 47,000 American Indian and Alaska Native students are enrolled in Bureau of Indian Education schools.

Like Pringle, Weingarten highlighted that "voters overwhelmingly rejected billionaire-backed voucher scams in November—even in states Trump won—because they know vouchers hurt student achievement, bankrupt state budgets, and deny opportunity to rural and urban communities."

"They spurned extremist school board candidates and opted again and again for levies and ballot initiatives to improve public schools," she said. "While this order will succeed in uniting parents and educators in a righteous effort to defend public schools, it is unfortunate that we have to spend time fighting for—rather than strengthening—the institutions 90% of American kids attend."

The union leaders' comments came just hours after the National Assessment of Educational Progress released data on student performance in mathematics and reading for 2024—which Weingarten responded to by saying: "We don't need stagnant NAEP scores to show us the headwinds children are facing, regardless of whether they attend public or private school. Rather than waiting for lagging indicators such as NAEP, AFT members are fighting every day for 'real solutions' to create safe, welcoming, and joyful schools that engage kids and close the achievement gap between the lowest and highest performers."

Trump's order and the related backlash also came after the president said on his Truth Social platform Tuesday afternoon: "Congratulations to Tennessee Legislators who are working hard to pass School Choice this week, which I totally support. We will very soon be sending Education BACK TO THE STATES, where it belongs. It is our goal to bring Education in the United States to the highest level, one that it has never attained before. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Trump has repeatedly teased fully dismantling the federal Department of Education, but he has also nominated its potential next leader: scandal-plagued former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon. She still needs to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, which is narrowly controlled by Republicans.

In addition to the measure that will shift money toward private schools, Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order "eliminating federal funding or support for illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K-12 schools, including based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology," and "protecting parental rights."

As LawDork's Chris Geidner summarized, the latter measure "attempts to restrict all schools that receive federal funds from protecting trans and nonbinary students or supporting diversity measures, while at the same time purporting to advance 'patriotic education.'"

FIGHTBACK FRIDAY

'Fired Up to Make These Goons as Frustrated as Possible': Federal Workers Find Fighting Spirit



"This is mental warfare. Don't quit. Hold the line," wrote one user on an online forum for federal employees and contractors, amid the Trump administration's repeated attacks on government workers.

Eloise Goldsmith
Jan 30, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Following a Tuesday memo sent from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management offering most of the federal workforce the option to resign or remain in their positions but without "full assurance regarding the certainty of [a worker's] position or agency," federal employees are taking to the social media platform Reddit to find solidarity and urge each other to stick it out.

"This non 'buyout' really seems to have backfired," wrote one user on subreddit for government workers and contractors, r/fednews.

"I'll be honest, before that email went out, I was looking for any way to get out of this fresh hell. But now I am fired up to make these goons as frustrated as possible, [President Donald Trump's return to in-person work directive] be damned. Hold the line!" the user wrote.

Common Dreams has included quotes from Reddit users who indicate they are federal employees, but did not independently verify their employment with the federal government.

Some media reports have called the OPM offer a "buyout," though the union the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and other observers have said it is merely an offer to resign, effective in September, with the ability to telework between now and September.

Federal employees have until February 6 to accept the offer, according to the email.

"The program is not buyout nor is it a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment ('VISP') program. Instead, it purports to offer employees the ability to submit a deferred resignation and claims employees that do so will continue to receive pay, while still possibly working, until September 30, 2025," according to a fact sheet from AFGE.

AFGE and at least one other union representing federal employees have urged their members not to resign by responding to OPM's email.

Meanwhile, the OPM email has also sparked federal worker pride on Reddit.

A self-described "blue collar fed" wrote on Wednesday that the memo demonstrated that the current administration fundamentally misunderstands "the kind of person who works for the federal government."

"If we were able to be bought with empty promises and dubious buyouts, we'd be in the private sector, making 25% more money than we do here," the user wrote. "We swore an oath to the Constitution and the people of these United States of America. We're here because we know that not everyone can do the jobs we do, and we know that what we do is important."

A Thursday post from a user expressing low morale in the face of the Trump administration's moves targeting federal workers and worrying that they could be fired, was met with encouragement and calls to remain strong. "This is mental warfare. Don't quit. Hold the line," a user wrote in response.

Multiple nonfederal workers said they were heartened by the solidarity and fighting spirit exhibited on r/fednews.

President of the group Run for Something, Amanda Litman, posted on X that one of the threads had her "in [her] feelings."

Unions representing federal employees are also fighting back against Trump administration actions focused on civil servants. Three unions have filed two separate lawsuits challenging Trump's "Schedule F" executive order, a measure aimed at removing job protections for many career federal employees.

Robert Reich has a special message for federal workers

REUTERS/Carlos Barria TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
Supporters react as Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally in Novi, Michigan, U.S. October 26, 2024.

Robert Reich

January 30, 2025

ALTERNET


I’m addressing this post to America’s 2.3 million federal employees.

My message: Don’t accept Elon’s offer.

Yesterday, Musk — via people he’s planted in the Office of Personnel Management — sent an email to all 2.3 million of you, offering to pay you for eight months of work, through September 30, if you’ll resign from the government before February 6. Otherwise, you risk being furloughed (that is, not paid) or fired.

You know what this is about. Not slimming the federal workforce, but substituting Trump loyalists for people like you, who are working for the American public.

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, said it out loud Tuesday on CNN: "The 2 million employees in the federal government are overwhelmingly left of center.” And now that Trump is elected, "it is essential for him to get control of government.”

But the fact is, neither Musk nor even Trump has legal authority to offer you eight months of pay if you’ll resign by February 6.

Your salaries are funded by the federal agencies and departments you work for, not by the Office of Personnel Management, not by Musk, and not by Trump.

None of them is authorized by Congress to move money from one agency or department to another without Congress’s approval. I know. I used to be a cabinet secretary.

Besides, the funding for your agency or department is guaranteed only through March 14, when the government is expected to shut down unless the debt ceiling is lifted. If not, any commitment for additional pay is worthless.

In fact, Musk (and Trump) are violating the law by agreeing to spend money that the administration doesn’t have. Congress could declare the entire offer illegal — which it is. Then where would you be?

May I also add that you shouldn’t trust Trump or Musk.

Trump has a long history of stiffing workers and contractors.

So, for that matter, does Musk. During the pandemic, Musk gave Tesla employees permission to remain at home if they didn’t feel comfortable reporting to the factory. Then he sent them termination notices alleging “failure to return to work.”

When he bought Twitter in 2022, Musk denied he wanted to lay off 75 percent of its staff (“No way I’m laying off 75 percent of them”) but then fired 80 percent of them (maybe that’s what he meant when he pledged not to fire 75 percent?)

In short, it’s a bum offer. Reject it.

By the way, thank you for your service.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Reich, former secretary of labor

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/

Major Public Sector Unions Sue Over Trump's 'Politicization' of Civil Service

The head of a legal group representing the plaintiffs called the Trump administration's effort to "politicize" nonpartisan federal employees "simply and clearly illegal."



Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), speaks during a news conference outside the AFL-CIO headquarters on July 15, 2021 in Washington, DC.
(Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Eloise Goldsmith
Jan 30, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Two unions representing federal employees filed a complaint in federal court on Wednesday arguing that U.S. President Donald Trump "illegally exceeded his authority" by attempting to roll back Biden-era worker protections when he implemented his "Schedule F" executive order, a measure aimed at removing job protections for many career federal employees.

The plaintiffs are the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents some 800,000 federal civilian employees, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which represents some 1.4 million public employees, including federal workers.

The unions argue that Schedule F, which creates a new category of federal employees and makes it easier for a president to remove career civil servants not normally impacted by a presidential transition, is a scheme that put politics over professionalism.

"Despite this long-standing recognition of the importance of our professional civil service and protections against its politicization, the recently issued Schedule F order announces President Trump's intent to reclassify many career civil servants into a new category of federal employees and strip away their civil service protections so that they can be more easily fired," the plaintiffs argued.

Another union representing federal employees, National Treasury Employees Union, also filed a lawsuit challenging Schedule F last week.

The order, signed on Trump's first day in office, is a redux of an executive order that he implemented at the tail end of his first term, which was later reversed by former President Joe Biden.

In a statement Wednesday, AFSCME president Lee Saunders said that Schedule F "is a shameless attempt to politicize the federal workforce by replacing thousands of dedicated, qualified civil servants with political cronies."

"Our union was born in the fight for a professional, nonpartisan civil service, and our communities will pay the price if these anti-union extremists are allowed to undo decades of progress by stripping these workers of their freedoms. Together, we are fighting back," he said.

On Monday, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued guidance for the heads of departments and agencies to determine which workers are subject to Trump's Schedule F order.

The memo from OPM is "broadly worded; just about anyone in the civil service could be swept up into this category," Alan Lescht, a Washington, D.C.-based employment lawyer who represents federal workers, told the outlet Axios.

OPM, acting OPM Director Charles Ezell, and Trump are all listed as defendants in the lawsuit, which alleges that Trump overstepped his legal authority when he issued Schedule F and rendered parts of a preexisting OPM rule that reinforced civil service protections and merit system principles "inoperative and without effect."

The suit argues that OPM failed to adhere to the "notice-and-comment process" under Administrative Procedure Act when it rendered those regulatory provisions inoperative.

"In just the nine days since Trump took office, his administration has repeatedly demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law in service of its political objectives," said Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman, whose firm is serving as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, in a Wednesday statement.

The Trump administration's effort "to politicize the nonpartisan, independent federal employees who protect our national and domestic security, ensure our food and medications are safe, deliver essential services to people and communities everywhere, and much more is simply and clearly illegal," Perryman said.

Federal Workers Union Warns Trump Purge 'Will Cause Chaos'


"Between the flurry of anti-worker executive orders and policies, it is clear that the Trump administration's goal is to turn the federal government into a toxic environment where workers cannot stay even if they want to."

U.S. President Donald Trump arrives at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C. on January 27, 2025.
(Photo: Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Jan 28, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


A union that represents over 800,000 employees of the federal and District of Columbia governments on Tuesday responded with alarm to U.S. President Donald Trump's effort to pressure some workers to leave their jobs.

"The number of civil servants hasn't meaningfully changed since 1970, but there are more Americans than ever who rely on government services," said American Federation of Government Employees national president Everett Kelley in a statement. "Purging the federal government of dedicated career federal employees will have vast, unintended consequences that will cause chaos for the Americans who depend on a functioning federal government."

"This offer should not be viewed as voluntary," Kelley added, referring to a memo emailed to federal employees on Tuesday. "Between the flurry of anti-worker executive orders and policies, it is clear that the Trump administration's goal is to turn the federal government into a toxic environment where workers cannot stay even if they want to."

Another labor group for federal workers, the National Treasury Employees Union, filed suit last week over one of those orders, which reinstated, with some amendments, the "Schedule F" measure that Trump implemented near the end of his first term.

In response to the administration's actions regarding the federal workforce, some critics have pointed to the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, from which the Republican president unsuccessfully tried to distance himself while on the campaign trail. As Common Dreamsreported earlier Tuesday, a U.S. tech researcher revealed that the authors of policies published by Trump's Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have ties to the far-right organization and its infamous initiative.

Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said in a Tuesday night statement that "Donald Trump is trying every trick he and his Project 2025 cronies can think of to circumvent established civil service protections so they can purge the civil service of experts and replace them with political loyalists."

"The victims here, as is always the case with Donald Trump, are the American people who will see government services and benefits allocated not by nonpartisan civil servants, but by partisan hacks," added Connolly, ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Connolly and Kelley's and comments on Tuesday came after a senior Trump official toldAxios that "the government-wide email being sent today is to make sure that all federal workers are on board with the new administration's plan to have federal employees in office and adhering to higher standards. We're five years past Covid and just 6% of federal employees work full-time in office. That is unacceptable."

While Axios broke the news of the "acceleration in President Trump's already unprecedented purge of the federal workforce," other media outlets also swiftly published related reports. Government Executivecalled out the debunked 6% figure, noting that "more than half of federal workers cannot telework because their duties are portable, and employees who telework spent around 60% of their work hours in person, per 2024 Office of Management and Budget data."

Many initial reports framed the message to federal workers as a "buyout" program, but after OPM posted the full memo on its website, experts including Alan Mygatt-Tauber‪, an adjust professor at Seattle University School of Law, emphasized that it "is absolutely NOT an early resignation offer with eight months severance pay."

Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern similarly stressed that "this is NOT a buyout! Those who take the offer simply get permission to telework through September, at which point they lose their jobs. Media coverage of the details has been pretty misleading."


The OPM memo emailed to workers explains that the "reformed federal workforce" will be built around four pillars: a return to the office, performance culture, a more streamlined and flexible workforce, and enhanced standards of conduct.

The memo states:
If you choose to remain in your current position, we thank you for your renewed focus on serving the American people to the best of your abilities and look forward to working together as part of an improved federal workforce. At this time, we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency but should your position be eliminated you will be treated with dignity and will be afforded the protections in place for such positions.

If you choose not to continue in your current role in the federal workforce, we thank you for your service to your country and you will be provided with a dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program. This program begins effective January 28 and is available to all federal employees until February 6. If you resign under this program, you will retain all pay and benefits regardless of your daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025 (or earlier if you choose to accelerate your resignation for any reason).

The offer "applies to all full-time federal employees, except for military personnel, the Postal Service, and those working in immigration enforcement or national security," Axios detailed. The White House expects 5-10% of workers will take the deal.

As NBC Newsnoted Tuesday:
Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who is now in charge of Trump's new Department of Government Efficiency, famously sent a similar email to employees shortly after he took over Twitter, which he renamed X, asking them to opt in to keep working at the company.

White House officials wouldn't say whether he was involved in the current effort. But the subject line of the email that will be sent to federal workers is: "A fork in the road."

Musk now has a post pinned on X of an art piece he commissioned called "A Fork in the Road."

Although "department" is in the name of the Musk-led entity, it is actually a presidential advisory commission—and although the billionaire initially suggested that it would lead the effort to cut $2 trillion in annual spending, he has since tempered expectations.

The commission and Musk, the world's richest person, have faced intense scrutiny from watchdog groups and progressive lawmakers, though some have also offered advice on how to pursue significant cuts without harming the lives of working people, including: ending privatized Medicare, reducing prescription drug prices, and slashing the Pentagon's massive budget.


This post was updated after the Office of Personnel Management memo was officially released to clarify the buyout language and add comment from Congressman Gerry Connolly.

FOSSIL FOOLS

'Catastrophic Blow': GOP and Three Democrats Confirm Zeldin for EPA


"This dangerous agenda that Zeldin will oversee will roll back vital pollution limits that protect us, abandon clean energy investments, and lock the country into reliance on dirty, expensive fossil fuels," said one campaigner.


Lee Zeldin, then-nominee to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, greets Sens. John Boozman (R-Ark.), right, and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) before his Senate Environment and Public Works confirmation hearing on January 16, 2025.
(Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Jan 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Climate and public health advocates were outraged on Wednesday after a trio of U.S. Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to confirm President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, former New York Congressman Lee Zeldin.

Critics have warned that Zeldin—like other Cabinet nominees—will serve billionaire polluters, not the American people and the planet, since Trump named him in November. They renewed those warnings after Democratic Sens. John Fetterman (Pa.), Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), and Mark Kelly (Ariz.) voted with Republicans to confirm him as EPA administrator.

After Zeldin's confirmation, the youth-led Sunrise Movement called him "a disaster for our planet and a win for Big Oil."



Climate Action Campaign director Margie Alt said in a statement that "Lee Zeldin's confirmation as EPA administrator is a catastrophic blow to the health of Americans, the climate, and the economy. Under Zeldin's leadership, the Environmental Protection Agency will no longer protect the American people and our communities—it will protect polluters."

Pointing to the new administrator's record and public statements, Alt said that "this dangerous agenda that Zeldin will oversee will roll back vital pollution limits that protect us, abandon clean energy investments, and lock the country into reliance on dirty, expensive fossil fuels that cost families at the gas pump."

"Americans didn't vote for dirtier air, more asthma attacks, or rising healthcare costs, yet that is exactly what Zeldin's EPA will deliver. Vulnerable communities, especially children, and seniors will bear the brunt of these policies, while a few fossil fuel executives rake in profits," she continued. "Zeldin's confirmation is a tragic failure for all Americans."

Marc Yaggi, CEO of Waterkeeper Alliance, declared that "this is a make-or-break moment for clean water, and the American people deserve leadership that puts their needs above the influence of corporate polluters."

While praising Zeldin's past rejection of offshore oil drilling and support for "sensible policies" on "forever chemicals," Yaggi said that "his history of voting against critical infrastructure and environmental funding and opposing clean water and air protections raises serious concerns about his commitment to effectively leading the Environmental Protection Agency."

Moms Clean Air Force suggested a rebrand for the EPA under Zeldin and Trump: Extreme Pollution Agency.




Since returning to the White House just 10 days ago, Trump has already taken various executive actions to attack the planet.

"The EPA's stated mission is to protect human health and the environment," Sierra Club legislative director Melinda Pierce said. "In the wake of Donald Trump's dangerous executive orders and illegal push to freeze all federal funding, the new EPA administrator will face a decision of whether to carry out the necessary duties of the role, or fold to Trump's deadly fossil fuel-backed agenda and broken promises."

"The American people want to breathe clean air and drink clean water," she stressed. "They want a healthy environment for their families today and the future generations of tomorrow. And they want to know that their government is doing everything in its power to protect them from the destructive impacts of the climate crisis that we sadly witness more and more of each day. That is now Lee Zeldin's charge, and we will do everything in our power to hold him accountable to the American people."

'Oil Industry Wins' as Trump Transportation Chief Targets Biden Clean Car Rules



"Sean Duffy is selling American families out to Big Oil, burdening us with higher fuel prices and more polluting gas-guzzlers that harm our health," said one campaigner.



U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy signs a directive on January 28, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: U.S. Department of Transportation)

Brett Wilkins
Jan 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


In a move decried by climate and environmental advocates, newly confirmed Republican U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Tuesday directed agency staff to immediately begin the process of rescinding or replacing former President Joe Biden's historic clean car pollution standards.

Duffy's first official act after being confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a 77-22 vote was to sign a memo acknowledging Republican President Donald Trump's policy of promoting fossil fuel use and ordering National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personnel to "commence an immediate review and reconsideration of all existing fuel economy standards applicable to all models of motor vehicles produced from model year 2022 forward."



The memo singles out Biden's finalized Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which regulate how far vehicles must travel on a single gallon of fuel. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) officials estimated the new standards would have pushed the average fuel efficiency of new cars and sport utility vehicles over 50 miles per gallon by 2031. The Biden administration subsequently weakened the rules.

"The memorandum signed today specifically reduces the burdensome and overly restrictive fuel standards that have needlessly driven up the cost of a car in order to push a radical Green New Deal agenda," Duffy said in a statement. "The American people should not be forced to sacrifice choice and affordability when purchasing a new car."

However, according to a 2024 NHTSA analysis, Biden's CAFE standards would have saved consumers nearly $23 billion in fuel costs and avoided the burning of approximately 70 billion gallons of gasoline through 2050.

Critics of the Trump administration's fossil fuel agenda also underscored the importance of CAFE standards in reducing gasoline and diesel consumption and combating planetary heating, which is driven primarily by burning fossil fuels. Some also noted that Duffy questions whether human activity is causing climate change.

"These commonsense, popular fuel economy standards save drivers money at the pump and reduce dangerous pollution from vehicles," Karen García, director of the Sierra Club's Clean Transportation for All campaign, said in a statement Wednesday. "Drivers spend excessive amounts of money to fuel their cars, and it's often a large part of household expenses."

"Sean Duffy is selling American families out to Big Oil, burdening us with higher fuel prices and more polluting gas-guzzlers that harm our health," García added.



Duffy's announcement is part of a wider Trump administration push to roll back Biden's efforts to boost electric vehicles. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is also taking aim at California's plan to ban the sale of gasoline-only new vehicles by 2035.

"As sad as it is, it's no surprise that climate denier Sean Duffy's first act at DOT is to advance Trump's harmful deregulatory agenda and roll back fuel economy standards," Will Anderson, electric vehicle policy advocate with Public Citizen's Climate Program, said Wednesday.

"Such a rollback would not only hinder consumer choices for more fuel-efficient vehicles while putting the U.S. auto industry further behind global competitors, it would raise consumer's costs when fueling—all to boost oil and gas industry profits," Anderson added.

Amnesty Urges Canada, Mexico Not to Help Trump Attack Asylum-Seekers

"President Trump will only be able to implement his harmful policies if countries in the Americas agree to play along."


A girl waits with her mother to be processed by the Mexican Refugee Commission, following the cancellation of CBP One appointments in the United States, in Tapachula, Mexico, on January 27, 2025.
(Photo: Jose Torres/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Jan 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Ten days into U.S. President Donald Trump's second term, Amnesty International Americas director Ana Piquer on Wednesday urged the Canadian and Mexican governments to refuse to participate in the Republican's attacks on migrants seeking safety.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has taken various executive actions to advance his far-right immigration agenda, including declaring a national emergency, attempting to end birthright citizenship, enabling U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to arrest people in sensitive locations like schools and churches, reinstating the Migrant Protection Protocols—also known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy—and effectively halting asylum by shutting down CBP One, a mobile application that migrants used to schedule appointments with Customs and Border Protection at ports of entry.

"The executive actions adopted by President Trump severely impact the rights of people seeking safety and place countless lives at risk, fabricating nonexisting threats to expand militarization, externalization of borders, generalized use of immigration detention, expedited removals, and criminalization of migrant rights defenders," said Piquer. "These policies make it near impossible for individuals to seek asylum in the United States and will result in thousands of people being forcibly returned to places where their lives or safety are at risk."

"President Trump is also calling for the use of criminal prosecutions for people crossing irregularly into the United States, a policy that resulted in the mass separations of families during Trump's first term," she noted. "To this day, there are families—mostly from Central America—who have still not been reunited from the first iteration of this cruel policy."

Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, toldThe Guardian earlier this month that "given the lack of records, it's impossible to know precisely how many families remain separated" due to the policy from Trump's first term, but "we think there may be around a thousand families or more that we can't confirm have been reunited."



Nodding to a weekend dispute between the Trump administration and Colombia, Piquer said that "the United States is also pressuring countries to accept deportation flights with individuals that are not nationals of those countries and threatening sanctions on those countries that refuse. All these policies have implications for countries throughout the Americas, continuing the troubling trend of the United States entering into bilateral agreements aimed at deterring migration."

The Amnesty leader specifically took aim at the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires most people seeking refugee protection to do so in whichever of the two nations they enter first. The treaty has been in effect since 2004.

"The agreement has forced individuals to attempt dangerous border crossings and has pushed people underground in order to seek safety," Piquer stressed. "As the United States becomes increasingly unsafe for asylum-seekers, the Canadian government must withdraw from the agreement immediately."

The treaty has withstood legal challenges in Canada, but the global human rights group isn't alone in continuing to call on the Canadian government to ditch the deal. After Trump's inauguration, Jon Milton wrote for the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, a progressive think tank, that the U.S. president had "declared war on migrants."

"The situation is bleak, and Canada has responsibilities—both moral and legal—to act. The first thing it should do is immediately withdraw from the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States," Milton argued. "If Trump actually does even half the things he has promised to do to migrants in the United States, it will trigger a humanitarian crisis—and Canada has the responsibility to act to protect people fleeing persecution."

While Trump's return to power may impact Canadian immigration policy, most migrants enter the United States at the southern border. Amnesty is pressuring the Mexican government to refuse to participate in any reiteration of the Remain in Mexico policy. Piquer pointed out that the version imposed during Trump's first term "trapped asylum-seekers in camps along the U.S.-Mexico border where they were at serious risk of human rights violations, with thousands of reports of people being assaulted, raped, kidnapped, and extorted."

Already, she said, "the shutdown of the CBP One application has created an insurmountable barrier for approximately 270,000 vulnerable individuals attempting to seek safety in the United States. They are now stranded in Mexico with no clear pathway to protection."

According to Doctors Without Borders, also known as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the app shutdown "triggered a wave of despair and uncertainty." Ramón Márquez, coordinator for the group's Comprehensive Care Center in Mexico City, said that "a patient we treated this week suffered an acute anxiety attack after her previously approved asylum appointment in early February was canceled... Our therapeutic teams are ramping up interventions to support those in emotional crisis."

Adriana Palomares, general coordinator for MSF in Mexico, said last week that "migration and seeking asylum are rights, not crimes. Governments across the region, including the U.S. and Mexico, must urgently implement migration policies that prioritize people and their protection."



Similarly demanding swift action, Piquer said Wednesday that "following the termination of CBP One, the Mexican government must urgently adopt measures to ensure the safety and security of those who had been waiting in Mexico for CPB One appointments, including allowing them to apply for international protection in Mexico and travel freely throughout the country."

"President Trump will only be able to implement his harmful policies if countries in the Americas agree to play along," she emphasized. "Amnesty International urgently calls on the governments of the region to refrain from participating in policies that undermine the rights and dignity of those seeking safety."

Piquer also called on the U.S. government to "respond to this moment of global displacement with funding and policies of welcome, to respond to the crisis with policies that are humane rather than those that hurt." However, such calls seem unlikely to be heard by Trump—who has threatened both Canada and Mexico with tariffs—or the Republican-controlled Congress.

Trump on Wednesday afternoon is set to sign the first bill of his second term—the Laken Riley Act—which congressional Republicans recently passed with help from a dozen Democratic senators and 46 Democrats in the House of Representatives. The legislation will expand mandatory federal detention of undocumented immigrants who are accused of even relatively minor crimes.

That includes locking up "undocumented children who have never been charged with or convicted of a crime," Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) noted after voting against the bill. "We've seen time and again the damage the federal government can cause our children with dangerous immigration policies like this."

Rescinded Funding Freeze Memo 'Just a Taste' of Chaos Vought Would Unleash

Trump's decision to halt funding for a variety of federal programs is "straight out of Project 2025, the far-right blueprint crafted by Russell Vought," said one lawmaker.

Russell Vought testifies before the Senate Budget Committee on his nomination to be the director of the Office of Management and Budget in Washington, D.C. on January 22, 2025.
(Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jan 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


The confusion and chaos triggered earlier this week by the Trump administration's federal funding freeze were compounded Wednesday when the Office of Management and Budget issued a new memo rescinding the previous announcement.

Shortly after White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the OMB had rescinded only the memo—not the funding freeze—in an effort to "end any confusion created by" a federal court's injunction blocking the directive, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said one thing was clear.

"No responsible senator of any party should vote to confirm [Russell] Vought to OMB," said the congresswoman.

The original order, which said all federal grants and loans would be halted starting at 5:00 pm ET Tuesday and which resulted in Medicaid payment portals being shut down across the country, and its subsequent rescission, offered "just a taste of the chaos Russ Vought would unleash," added Ocasio-Cortez, urging Americans to demand that their senators vote against President Donald Trump's nominee for OMB director.




Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) echoed Ocasio-Cortez, saying the attempt to freeze federal grants was "straight out of Project 2025, the far-right blueprint crafted by Russell Vought."


Vought, who led the OMB during Trump's first term, is a co-author of the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, which calls for the president to "ignore laws that safeguard Congress' constitutional power of the purse," said Boyle.

That was what Monday evening's order did, critics have said this week, when it called for federal agencies to conduct a "comprehensive analysis" of their spending to ensure the use of grants and loans comply with Trump's executive orders, including those banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and denying that transgender people exist.

Leavitt refused to answer a question at a press briefing Tuesday regarding whether the directive would impact Medicaid—but before the briefing was over, Democratic lawmakers said that payment portals for the healthcare program for low-income households and people with disabilities had been disabled due to the OMB memo.

Head Start early childhood education programs also saw an immediate impact, and Democrats warned that clinical trials could promptly be canceled without funding.

As Democratic lawmakers vowed to fight the administration's freeze and some called for the Senate Budget Committee to halt consideration of Vought's nomination on Tuesday, nonprofit groups and businesses filed a legal challenge, leading U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan in the District of Columbia to grant a "brief administrative stay" directing the OMB not to freeze funds until a hearing scheduled for February 3.

Democrats and progressive advocates were briefly elated Wednesday afternoon when the OMB announced it was rescinding the previous memo—but Leavitt's subsequent comments soon added to the confusion over whether or not programs such as Meals on Wheels and Medicaid would be able to continue operating.

"In light of the injunction, OMB has rescinded the memo to end any confusion on federal policy created by the court ruling and the dishonest media coverage," said Leavitt. "The executive orders issued by the president on funding reviews remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented by all agencies and departments. This action should effectively end the court case and allow the government to focus on enforcing the president's orders on controlling federal spending. In the coming weeks and months, more executive action will continue to end the egregious waste of federal funding."

Mike Ollen, senior political adviser to Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who spoke out vehemently against the funding freeze on Tuesday, said the White House had been "clear as mud" about how Americans would be impacted by president's executive orders.

"Kick elderly folks off of Meals on Wheels, kick kids off of their healthcare, and then rescind the memo detailing it but not the policy itself," said Ollen. "Great work all around."

Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy for the Center for American Progress, said the rescission of the memo was "a profoundly welcome step," but noted that it's clear the White House is moving forward with "other illegal impoundments," including foreign assistance, Inflation Reduction Act, and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds.

"This won't be the last time they try to override the will of the American people," said Boyle. "Even now, the White House is still withholding funding that was approved on a bipartisan basis—including critical infrastructure investments. We must remain vigilant—because Trump and his far-right allies will continue to try and put programs that millions of middle-class families rely on at risk."

As Part of 'Authoritarian Takeover,' Trump Signs Order to Deport Pro-Palestine Students

"Trump and his cronies do not care about Jewish safety—in fact, they and the white nationalists who support them are themselves the greatest threat to American Jews," said one campaigner.


Pro-Palestinian students gather on the campus of Wayne State University to protest the Biden administration's support for Israel in Detroit, Michigan on May 6, 2024.
(Photo: Adam J. Dewey/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Jan 29, 2025

COMMON DREAMS

An executive order signed Wednesday by Republican U.S. President Donald Trump authorizing the deportation of noncitizen students and others who took part in protests against Israel's annihilation of Gaza was condemned by civil rights defenders as an overzealous bid to smear the movement for Palestinian rights under the guise of combating antisemitism.

Before publishing the order—which is titled "Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism"—the White House accused "pro-Hamas aliens and left-wing radicals" of waging "a campaign of intimidation, vandalism, and violence on the campuses and streets of America" and the Biden administration of turning "a blind eye to this coordinated assault on public order."

Trump's office said the new directive "takes forceful and unprecedented steps to marshal all Federal resources to combat the explosion of antisemitism on our campuses and in our streets since October 7, 2023."

"To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice... we will find you, and we will deport you," the White House said, adding that the Trump administration "will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before."

The White House vowed "immediate action" by federal prosecutors in response to "terroristic threats, arson, vandalism, and violence against American Jews"—without providing any examples of these alleged crimes.



While analyses have shown that pro-Palestine student protests have been nearly 100% peaceful, violence by police and pro-Israel counter-demonstrators was reported on numerous campuses.

Trump signed two additional executive orders late Wednesday; one promoting so-called "school choice" policies critics say are meant to destroy public education, and another ending federal funding for public schools accused of "indoctrination... including based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemned Trump's antisemitism order as "a dishonest, overbroad, and unenforceable attempt to smear college students who protested against the Israeli government's genocidal war on Gaza in overwhelmingly peaceful ways."

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)—which led an unprecedented nationwide wave of Jewish-led protests for Palestinian rights—said Trump's order "is pulled directly from the pages of the far-Right Heritage Foundation's 'Project Esther' report, which is a blueprint for using the federal government and private institutions to dismantle the Palestine solidarity movement and broader U.S. civil society, under the guise of 'fighting antisemitism.'"

"These tactics are built to disrupt the historic movement for Palestinian liberation across the U.S.—including on college campuses—before then using those same tactics to attack a wide range of progressive social justice movements," JVP added.

JVP executive director Stefanie Fox said in a statement, "We stand with the student protestors who so bravely put their bodies and academic careers on the line to save lives and demand an end to the Israeli military's destruction of Gaza."

"As Jews, we refuse to be pawns in the far-right's authoritarian takeover," Fox added. "Trump and his cronies do not care about Jewish safety—in fact, they and the white nationalists who support them are themselves the greatest threat to American Jews. They are waging a campaign against all those who are brave enough to challenge their power."

Trump Signs Sweeping Xenophobic Bill, Rescinding Due Process for Millions

"The Laken Riley Act capitalizes on a horrible tragedy in order to advance President Trump's anti-immigrant agenda by scapegoating people seeking safety," said one campaigner.

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a signed copy of the Laken Riley Act in Washington, D.C. on January 29, 2025.
(Photo: Pedro Ugarte/AFP via Getty Images)


Brett Wilkins
Jan 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Human rights defenders decried U.S. President Donald Trump's signing of legislation Wednesday that critics warn will strip due process rights from millions of people while harming some of the most vulnerable members of society, including migrant children, victims of sexual violence, and survivors of domestic abuse.

Trump signed the Laken Riley Act—named after a young woman murdered last year by a Venezuelan man who, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), entered the United States illegally—calling it a "landmark law" that "will save countless innocent American lives."

"The Laken Riley Act is based upon false, xenophobic narratives that dehumanize and criminalize an entire group of people due to the actions of one person."

However, Amy Fischer, director of the ACLU's Refugee and Migrant Rights Program, said in a statement Wednesday that "the Laken Riley Act capitalizes on a horrible tragedy in order to advance President Trump's anti-immigrant agenda by scapegoating people seeking safety and stripping away their right to due process."

"This legislation mandates the arrest and detention of our undocumented neighbors for being convicted or charged of any theft, shoplifting, burglary, or larceny offense," Fischer noted. "Mandatory detention solely for being accused of theft strips people of their right to due process and constitutes arbitrary detention under international human rights law."

"The Laken Riley Act is based upon false, xenophobic narratives that dehumanize and criminalize an entire group of people due to the actions of one person," Fischer added. "It will separate families and make our communities less safe. It is simply unconscionable for Congress to create a new mechanism that gives people the power to falsely accuse immigrants of theft knowing their detention is mandatory."
delete

As the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the Bay Area, which called the law "shameful and unconstitutional," noted Wednesday: "This bill does not require a conviction—simply being accused of a crime is enough to force individuals into mandatory detention without review by any judge. In doing so, the law strips due process protections and allows for discrimination against vulnerable immigrant communities."

The group continued:
The federal government already has the power to detain and deport individuals who commit criminal acts. But in our legal system, judges act as a constitutionally required check on police actions. This new law removes that check. It is a direct attack on the constitutional rights of immigrants and communities of color, and it erodes the civil liberties of American society at large. It will incentivize racial profiling and divert law enforcement resources away from real threats, making our communities less safe.

"Lawyers' Committee and our partners vow to challenge this unconstitutional law in court," Bianca Sierra Wolff, the group's executive director, said in a statement. "We will not stand by while the rights of immigrants and communities of color are trampled for political gain."

Writing for Common Dreams Wednesday, National Center for Youth Law senior director Neha Desai and NCYL attorney Melissa Adamson lamented the Laken Riley Act's passage and urged Congress, both chambers of which passed the law with bipartisan support, to "do the right thing" by introducing "new legislation to protect children from this draconian law."

"Policymakers on both sides of the political aisle seem all too eager to support legislation that ignores that immigrant children are human beings, worthy of the same care and protections that their own children enjoy," Desai and Adamson contended. "It is deeply disheartening to see lawmakers shift with the political winds rather than hold true to fundamental values. Congress must not acquiesce to a country in which the rejection of children's rights is the norm."

Shares in private prison companies have skyrocketed since Trump won last November's election, partly in anticipation of a boom in business due to the Laken Riley Act and the broader campaign of mass deportations now underway.

On Wednesday, Trump also said he would instruct the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security to prepare a detention facility—some critics called it a "concentration camp"—capable of holding 30,000 migrants at the notorious offshore Guantánamo Bay prison run by the U.S. military in Cuba.

'Momentous Victory for Climate Justice': Rosebank, Jackdaw Oilfields Ruled Unlawful

"There can be victories in the world of climate protest," said one organizer. "This is a big one."


Climate activists demonstrate against Rosebank and Jackdaw fossil fuel projects outside of the court of session on November 12, 2024 in Edinburgh, Scotland.
(Photo: Jeff J. Mitchell/Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jan 30, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

After winning a landmark lawsuit to stop oil and gas production at two North Sea fossil fuel projects in the United Kingdom Thursday, the global climate action group Greenpeace called for applause for the campaigners who have spent years demanding no new pollution-causing developments.

"This is game-changing," said Greenpeace U.K. "And it's ONLY been possible thanks to YEARS of fighting by THOUSANDS of climate campaigners! Power to the people."

The comments came after Judge Andrew Stewart of Scotland's Court of Session ruled that Equinor and Shell, the fossil fuel giants behind the Rosebank oil and gas field and the Jackdaw gas project, respectively, cannot move ahead with extraction because the government did not take into account the emissions that would result from the projects.

The companies have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Rosebank and Jackdaw, with Equinor saying it had lined up $2.7 billion in contracts for the former field, with an estimated 300 million barrels of oil and gas expected to be extracted beginning in 2026 or 2027.

The Stop Rosebank coalition, made up of grassroots campaigners and organizations, said the climate pollution from Rosebank "would be more than the combined annual CO2 emissions of all 28 low-income countries in the world, including Uganda, Ethiopia, and Mozambique."

"In other words, emissions from this one U.K. field would be more than those created by the 700 million people in the world's poorest countries in a year," said the coalition. "These are among the same countries that have contributed the least to the climate crisis but are already experiencing the worst impacts of a warming planet."

Stewart said in his ruling that "the public interest in authorities acting lawfully and the private interest of members of the public in climate change outweigh the private interest of the developers."

The campaign group Fossil Free London promptly organized a rally outside the Norwegian embassy in the U.K. capital to celebrate the verdict and call on Norway-based Equinor not to appeal the ruling.

"There can be victories in the world of climate protest," said one organizer. "This is a big one."





The ruling was in line with a decision handed down by the U.K. Supreme Court last year, which said local authorities must consider the full environmental impact of all new fossil fuel projects before they are approved.


Thursday's ruling is the latest evidence, said Freya Aitchison, oil and gas campaigner at Friends of the Earth Scotland, that "new oil is over."

"This signals the beginning of the end for fossil fuel production in the U.K.," said Aitchison. "Political attention must immediately turn to developing an urgent and fair transition plan for workers."

"This is a momentous victory for climate justice. It shows the power of the hundreds of thousands of people who have fought against the climate-wrecking Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields for years. The U.K. Government must now end this disastrous project, rule out all new oil fields and fossil fuel developments and focus on delivering a planned, funded transition for oil workers," added Aitchison. "This ruling is a turning point, we can and must choose a better future."

Carla Denyer, a Member of Parliament for the Green Party, called on the U.K. government, now led by the Labour Party, to "refuse consent for the 13 other oil and gas drilling projects licensed by the previous government."

Global Justice Now said the government should also turn its attention to the entire planet and support calls for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"This is a huge milestone towards a livable planet and away from polluting fossil fuels," said Liz Murray, head of the group's Scottish campaigns. "Now we need global coordination to end new oil and gas not just here but around the world. The U.K. government should back calls from some of the most climate vulnerable countries for a fossil fuel treaty to plan a clean energy future that leaves no worker, community or country behind."