Scot Wilson, Author at Close Up Foundation

Should Congress Reassert Its War Powers Over Venezuela?

Posted on January 7, 2026January 21, 2026 by Scot Wilson

On January 3, 2026, U.S. military forces conducted overnight strikes in Caracas, the capital city of Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. President Donald Trump announced the operation from Mar-a-Lago, declaring that the United States would “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.” Maduro was transported to New York, where he faces a 2020 federal indictment on charges including narco-terrorism conspiracy and cocaine importation.

The operation has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate: What role should Congress play in authorizing military action abroad? This week, the Senate will vote on a bipartisan war powers resolution sponsored by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) that would block further military action in Venezuela without congressional approval.

What Is the War Powers Resolution?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted by Congress over President Richard Nixon’s veto following revelations about secret military operations during the Vietnam War, including unauthorized bombings in Cambodia. The law was designed to ensure that “the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President” would apply to decisions about committing U.S. Armed Forces to hostilities abroad.

The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into situations involving hostilities and prohibits U.S. Armed Forces from remaining engaged for more than 60 days without congressional authorization. Since 1973, presidents have submitted over 130 reports to Congress under the resolution, though debates about its application and constitutionality have persisted across administrations.

What Is Being Proposed?

The current war powers resolution (S.J.Res.90) would direct the president to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force. The resolution is “privileged,” meaning Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) cannot prevent it from coming to the floor for a vote.

A similar resolution failed in November 2025 by a vote of 49-51, with only Sens. Paul and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joining Democrats in support. Sponsors hope the events of this weekend will persuade additional Republicans to support the measure.

Arguments in Favor of Passing the Resolution

Supporters of the resolution emphasize constitutional principles, congressional authority, and concerns about precedent.

Constitutional Authority: Sen. Kaine has been a vocal advocate for congressional war powers. “It’s time for Congress to get its a– off the couch and do what the Constitution mandates that we do,” he said. “We have to put this before the American people, not just in private settings, but in public hearings.” Sen. Kaine called President Trump’s unauthorized military action “a sickening return to a day when the United States asserted the right to dominate the internal political affairs of all nations in the Western Hemisphere.”
Bipartisan Concerns About Executive Overreach: Sen. Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican, has consistently supported war powers resolutions regardless of which party holds the presidency. “The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote,” Sen. Paul said. “We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war.”
Questions About Legal Authority: Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) questioned the administration’s legal justification. “If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law,” he wrote. On the House floor, Rep. Massie invoked James Madison’s warning that “to the extent that war-making power devolves to one person, liberty dissolves.”
International Law Concerns: Legal scholars and international bodies have raised questions about the operation’s legality. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed” and warned that “these developments constitute a dangerous precedent.” Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, told NBC News that the operation effectively amounts to a “kidnapping” that “violates core principles of the United Nations Charter.” Chatham House, a British foreign policy think tank, concluded that “it is difficult to conceive of possible legal justifications” for the operation under international law.
Concerns About Precedent: Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), while praising the operation, expressed concern that “Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan.” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said the operation “contravenes the principle of non-use of force, which underpins international law.”

Arguments Against Passing the Resolution

Opponents of the resolution point to executive authority, the nature of the operation, and national security considerations.

Law Enforcement, Not War: Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized the operation as a law enforcement action to arrest indicted fugitives, not an act of war. “At its core, this was an arrest of two indicted fugitives of American justice, and the Department of War supported the Department of Justice in that job,” Secretary Rubio said. He argued this distinction means congressional notification was unnecessary: “It’s just not the kind of mission that you can pre-notify because it endangers the mission.”
Dealing with a Dictator and Drug Trafficker: President Trump defended the action by pointing to Maduro’s 2020 indictment on drug trafficking charges and his authoritarian rule. “Nicolás Maduro was a thug and an illegitimate leader of Venezuela, terrorizing and oppressing its people for far too long,” President Trump said. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) argued, “Congress doesn’t need to be notified every time the executive branch is making an arrest.”
Protecting American Interests: Vice President JD Vance defended the operation as protecting Americans from drug trafficking. “I understand the anxiety over the use of military force,” he wrote, “but are we just supposed to allow a communist to steal our stuff in our hemisphere and do nothing?” The administration has framed ongoing military actions against Venezuela as essential to combating narcotics flowing into the United States.
Operational Security: President Trump indicated weeks before the operation that he would not brief lawmakers in advance because he was worried they would “leak.” Supporters argue that the sensitive nature of military operations sometimes requires secrecy that precludes prior congressional notification.

Broader Questions

The debate extends beyond this specific resolution to fundamental questions about American foreign policy and constitutional governance. Even some who support the outcome of the Venezuela operation have raised concerns about how it was conducted. As Rep. Massie asked on the House floor: “Do we truly believe that Nicolás Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq, or Syria?”

Meanwhile, the resolution faces long odds. Even if it passes the Senate, it would need approval by the House of Representatives and the president’s signature—or veto-proof majorities in both chambers—to become law.

Discussion Questions

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and the president the role of commander in chief. How should these powers be balanced when responding to threats that may require quick action?
The administration argues this was a law enforcement operation, not an act of war. Does this distinction matter for purposes of congressional authorization? Why or why not?
Sen. Paul, a Republican, has joined Democrats in supporting war powers resolutions under both Democratic and Republican presidents. What does this suggest about whether war powers should be a partisan or nonpartisan issue?
Legal scholars and international leaders have raised concerns that this operation sets a dangerous precedent. What precedents—positive or negative—might this action establish for future U.S. foreign policy or for other nations?
Rep. Massie pointed to past U.S. interventions in Cuba, Libya, Iraq, and Syria that did not achieve their intended outcomes. How should past experiences with regime change inform current debates about military action?
If you were a member of Congress, how would you vote on this resolution? What factors would guide your decision?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Sources

Featured Images: Copyright (c) 2025 Miha Creative/Shutterstock.

[1] NPR. “7 Takeaways from Trump’s Incursion into Venezuela.” 5 Jan. 2026.

[2] Fox News. “Kaine Tells Congress to ‘Get Its A– Off the Couch,’ Reclaim War Powers.” 5 Jan. 2026.

[3] The Hill. “Senate Voting Next Week on Resolution to Block Donald Trump’s Action in Venezuela.” 5 Jan. 2026.

[4] Sen. Tim Kaine. “Kaine, Paul, Schumer, & Schiff File War Powers Resolution on Venezuela.” Press Release. Dec. 2025.

[5] ABC News. “Republicans Largely Back Trump on Venezuela Action, Democrats Decry It as Unjustified.” 4 Jan. 2026.

[6] The Hill. “Rep. Thomas Massie Questions Legality of Trump’s Action in Venezuela.” 4 Jan. 2026.

[7] Chatham House. “The US Capture of President Nicolás Maduro—and Attacks on Venezuela—Have No Justification in International Law.” 4 Jan. 2026.

[8] UN News. “US Actions in Venezuela ‘Constitute a Dangerous Precedent’: Guterres.” 5 Jan. 2026.

[9] NBC News. “U.S. Allies and Foes Fear Maduro’s Capture Sets Precedent for More American Intervention.” 4 Jan. 2026.

[10] Atlantic Council. “Experts React: The US Just Captured Maduro. What’s Next for Venezuela and the Region?” 3 Jan. 2026.

[11] Congress.gov. “S.J.Res.90 – 119th Congress (2025-2026).”

[12] Congress.gov. “Understanding the War Powers Resolution.”

Should the Federal Poverty Line Be $140,000?

Posted on December 16, 2025January 22, 2026 by Scot Wilson

In late November 2025, a viral essay by financial strategist Michael W. Green sparked intense debate about how America measures poverty. Writing in his Substack newsletter, Green argued that the federal poverty line—currently set at approximately $31,200 for a family of four—is dangerously outdated. His provocative claim? The real poverty threshold should be closer to $140,000.

Green’s argument centered on how we calculate the poverty line. In 1963, economist Mollie Orshansky developed the original formula by multiplying the cost of a minimum food budget by three, since food then represented about one-third of family spending. Today, food accounts for only 5-7% of household budgets, while housing, health care, and childcare have grown significantly. Green argued that applying Orshansky’s logic with modern spending patterns would yield a poverty threshold between $130,000 and $150,000.

The essay went viral, drawing coverage from The Washington Post, Fortune, podcasters across the political spectrum, and cable news networks. It struck a nerve with Americans who feel economically squeezed despite statistics suggesting the economy is strong. But is $140,000 really a reasonable poverty line? And what does this debate reveal about how we think about economic well-being in America?

Arguments Supporting Green’s Concerns

The official poverty measure is fundamentally outdated. Christopher Wimer, co-director of Columbia University’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy, acknowledged that Green “is echoing some things that poverty scholars have talked about for quite a while—the official poverty measure being antiquated.” The formula has not been structurally updated since the 1960s, even as American family budgets have transformed. “Food in budgets has become a much smaller piece,” noted Wimer. “Housing has gotten much more expensive.”
Middle-class families feel genuinely squeezed. A recent Harris Poll found that 64% of six-figure earners said their income is not a milestone for success but merely the bare minimum for staying afloat. As Libby Rodney, chief strategy officer of the Harris Poll, observed, “Even high earners are financially anxious—they’re living the illusion of affluence while privately juggling credit cards, debt, and survival strategies.” When a teacher and carpenter near Boston earning a combined $150,000 struggle to save for retirement while paying for childcare, something in our economic calculus may be off.
The “Valley of Death” traps working families. Green highlighted a real phenomenon economists call “benefit cliffs.” As families earn more income, they lose eligibility for programs like Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and housing assistance—sometimes losing more in benefits than they gain in wages. The Atlanta Federal Reserve has documented these cliffs extensively, showing how a family might be worse off earning $70,000 than $50,000 because of lost benefits. This creates perverse incentives that can trap families in lower-income brackets.

Arguments Against the $140,000 Figure

The math does not hold up to scrutiny. Economist Noah Smith, in his newsletter Noahpinion, called the $140,000 figure “very silly.” He pointed out that Green used average spending figures as if they were minimum requirements—but averages include plenty of discretionary spending. Green also used cost-of-living data from Essex County, New Jersey, one of the most expensive areas in America, while presenting his numbers as “conservative, national-average data.”
Green significantly understated typical family income. Economist Jeremy Horpedahl noted that while Green repeatedly cited median household income of $80,000, the relevant figure—median income for married couples with two earners—is approximately $142,000. For the exact family type Green described, half of American families already meet or exceed his proposed threshold.
Better poverty measures already exist. Scott Winship of the American Enterprise Institute emphasized that the Census Bureau already publishes a Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) that accounts for housing, utilities, and government benefits—addressing many of Green’s concerns. The SPM shows a poverty rate of about 12.9%, higher than the official 10.6%, but nowhere near the two-thirds of Americans Green implies are poor.
Confusing “comfortable” with “not poor” distorts our understanding. Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, argued that Green conflated the poverty line with a middle-class comfort threshold. As Megan Curran of Columbia’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy put it, “A lot of people up and down the economic spectrum are struggling with affordability issues. [But] how many people have incomes below this real deprivation or suffering threshold—that has declined over time.”

What This Debate Reveals

The passionate response to Green’s essay—both supportive and critical—reveals a genuine tension in American economic life. Economic indicators show historically low unemployment, rising wages, and declining official poverty rates. Yet many families, including those earning six figures, report feeling financially precarious. This gap between statistics and people’s experiences and anxieties deserves serious examination.

The debate also raises fundamental questions about what government should measure and why. The poverty line is not just an academic exercise—it determines eligibility for programs affecting millions of Americans. If we dramatically raised the threshold, should vastly more Americans qualify for government assistance? Or would that fundamentally change what “poverty” means?

Perhaps most importantly, this controversy highlights how different Americans experience the same economy. A $140,000 income means something very different in San Jose, California, than in Little Rock, Arkansas. For a family with young children requiring full-time childcare, that income stretches far less than for families without children or with a stay-at-home parent. These regional and life-stage variations matter enormously for policy.

Discussion Questions

What should the federal poverty line actually measure—bare survival, basic participation in society, or something else? How should we define economic “need”?
If families earning six-figure incomes genuinely feel financially stressed, is the problem with how we measure poverty, with the cost of living, with expectations, or with something else entirely?
The “Valley of Death” concept suggests that earning more money can sometimes leave families worse off due to lost benefits. What responsibility, if any, does government have to smooth these transitions? What are the trade-offs of different approaches?
Should poverty thresholds vary significantly by region, as they do in the SPM, or should there be a single national standard? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
Green’s essay resonated with millions of Americans despite being criticized by many of his fellow economists. What does this disconnect between expert opinion and public sentiment suggest about how we communicate economic data and policy?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Sources

[1] Green, Michael W. “Part 1: My Life Is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Quietly Broke America.” Yes, I Give a Fig (Substack). 23 Nov. 2025.
[2] Smith, Noah. ‘The $140,000 Poverty Line is Very Silly.” Noahpinion (Substack). 29 Nov. 2025.
[3] Horpedahl, Jeremy. “The Poverty Line is Not $140,000.” Economist Writing Every Day. 26 Nov. 2025.
[4] Winship, Scott. “How Not to Redefine Poverty” and “The Real Math of Survival?” First World Problems (Substack). Nov. 2025.
[5] Washington Post. “Meet the Investor Who Thinks the Poverty Line Should be $140,000.” 29 Nov. 2025.
[6] U.S. Census Bureau. “Poverty in the United States: 2024.” Supplemental Poverty Measure Data.
[7] Wimer, Christopher, et al. Center on Poverty and Social Policy. Columbia University. Historical Supplemental Poverty Measure Research.
[8] Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. “Policy Rules Database.” Benefits Cliff Analysis Tools.
[9] Harris Poll. Survey on Six-Figure Earner Financial Anxiety. Nov. 2025.

Should ICE Agents Be Required to Visibly Identify Themselves?

Posted on December 5, 2025January 21, 2026 by Scot Wilson

In recent months, videos of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducting operations while wearing masks or face coverings have sparked debates about law enforcement accountability, transparency, safety, and privacy. In response, some lawmakers at the federal and state levels have introduced legislation aimed at requiring ICE agents and other law enforcement officials to visibly identify themselves during enforcement activities.

What Is Being Proposed?

At the federal level, the VISIBLE Act (S. 2212) would prohibit ICE agents from concealing their faces or obscuring their badge numbers during immigration enforcement operations.¹ Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who introduced the bill alongside Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), argued, “Reports of individuals impersonating ICE officers have only increased the risk to public and officer safety. The lack of visible identification and uniform standards for immigration enforcement officers has created confusion, stoked fear, and undermined public trust in law enforcement.”²

Also at the federal level, the Immigration Enforcement Identification Safety Act, introduced by Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), would require ICE agents to display their agency and name or badge number while removing most face coverings. Sen. Kaine explained the bill’s origins: “They were confused because the ICE agents were wearing masks and were not wearing anything that identified themselves as ICE agents. So, is this a gang, are these kidnappers, are these rogue agents?”³

Similar measures have been introduced in several states:

California’s No Secret Police Act (SB 627), signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in September 2025, prohibits federal and local law enforcement from wearing ski masks and similar masks.⁴ State Sen. Scott Wiener (D), the bill’s author, stated: “Law enforcement should never be easily confused with the guy in the ski mask robbing a liquor store, yet that’s what’s happening with ICE’s extreme masking.”⁵
Illinois’ HB 4086 would require law enforcement officers to display their agency and name or badge number while removing most face coverings. State Rep. Barbara Hernandez (D) posted: “We live in a democracy, not a police state. We’ve seen too many examples across the country of masked individuals with no identification carrying firearms and stoking fear in communities.”⁶

What Are the Arguments in Favor?

Proponents of identification requirements emphasize accountability, civil liberties, and public safety.

Government Accountability and Transparency: Scott Shuchart, a former ICE and Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties official, argued, “Masked, plainclothes officers create an unreasonable risk of escalating violence and unnerve everyone who sees them.”⁷ Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) added, “Communities around the country have been clear: we should not have armed, masked, and unidentified individuals prowling around neighborhoods and snatching people off the street.”⁸
Civil Liberties and Due Process: The American Civil Liberties Union has raised concerns about accountability, noting that masked enforcement creates “a recipe for civil rights abuses and government waste.”⁹ The New York City Bar Association stated in a formal position: “The widespread practice of hiding the identity of all officers conducting detentions is more likely to be exactly what it seems: an attempt to evade accountability for abuses by those purporting to enforce the law.”¹⁰
Public Safety Concerns: Sens. Warner and Kaine wrote to ICE leadership, citing warnings from the International Association of Chiefs of Police that “members of the general public may be intimidated or fearful of officers wearing a face covering, which may heighten their defensive reactions.”¹¹ They continued: “The failure of ICE officers and agents to promptly and clearly identify who they are and the authority under which they are acting has led witnesses of immigration enforcement operations to justifiably question the law enforcement status, authority, and constitutionality of ICE officers and agents and their operations.”¹²Supporters also point to rising incidents of impersonation. California’s SB 627 cited multiple cases, including a man in North Carolina arrested for allegedly posing as an ICE officer and sexually assaulting a woman under threat of deportation.¹³
Community Impact: Local activists and community leaders have been particularly vocal about the impact of masked enforcement on their neighborhoods. Leonardo Quintero, chairperson of Chicago’s 12th Police District Council, described the community impact: “It’s a fear tactic; it’s a tactic that’s used to normalize state violence through threat. If you don’t know who is doing something to you, you don’t know how you’re supposed to protect yourself.”¹⁴ Quintero and other District Council members wrote to Chicago officials demanding accountability: “At a very minimum, we need to know exactly who they are as they approach any resident. That is: no mask and having an identifiable agency [tag], as well as a badge or name tag.”¹⁵

What Are the Arguments Against?

Opponents of identification requirements raise concerns about agent safety, federal authority, and operational effectiveness.

Agent Safety: According to DHS, attacks against ICE officials have increased by more than 800% this year compared to the same time period in 2024. There have been several instances of violence directed at ICE agents and facilities in 2025, including an armed attack against a Texas detention center in July.¹⁶ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons told CBS News: “I’m not a proponent of the masks. However, if that’s a tool that the men and women of ICE to keep themselves and their family safe, then I will allow it.”¹⁷
Agent Privacy: DHS has defended the practice, with Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stating: “These sanctuary politicians are trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers.”¹⁸ John Sandweg, former acting director of ICE in President Barack Obama’s administration, acknowledged: “There are times where I think for officer safety reasons, I understand why they would wear masks. … There are going to be cases where there is a potential risk to the safety of the officers themselves, or their families, where they could be identified and then that could lead to them being targeted.”¹⁹
Operational Concerns: Critics of these laws suggest that visible identification requirements could compromise enforcement effectiveness in jurisdictions which are already resistant to cooperating with immigration enforcement actions.
Federal Authority and Enforcement: Brian Marvel, President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, argued that states are attempting to overreach their authority. “California has no legal authority to regulate federal operations. We cannot require the U.S. Navy to switch to electric vessels when entering our shorelines,” he said. “And we cannot tell ICE how to operate. SB 627 is unconstitutional.”²⁰ Ed Obayashi, a special prosecutor in California and an expert on national and state police practices, noted that enforcement would be challenging because “federal officers can’t be prosecuted by state courts for activities performed during their official duties.”²¹

Balancing Perspectives

Some experts argue that the debate requires nuance. Temple Law School Professor Jules Epstein wrote: “Established law enforcement agencies in America, while far from perfect, have figured out how to protect their agents and accomplish their goals without hiding behind masks. If ICE is to be seen as a legitimate and lawful agency, it must do the same.”²²Meanwhile, Stephen Kass of the New York City Bar Association distinguished between legitimate uses and current practices: “It may well be a reason for masking if you are engaged in a clandestine operation against an organized drug ring or a well-armed gang of some sort. But that’s not what’s happening here.”²³

Constitutional and Practical Questions

The debate also raises important questions about federalism—the division of power between state and federal governments. Can states regulate how federal agents operate within their borders? The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law, but states also have interests in protecting their residents’ civil liberties and public safety.

There’s also the practical question of enforcement. Mark Reichel, a Sacramento-based attorney with experience litigating federal cases, suggests California’s law might have more teeth than critics claim: “In light of the fact their own rules require them to identify themselves anyway, there is a good chance this law actually may be upheld in California only for ICE agents who operate in California.”²⁴

In October 2025, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis granted a temporary injunction requiring federal immigration agents in Chicago and surrounding areas to wear visible identification when not working undercover—demonstrating that courts may be willing to impose such requirements.²⁵

Discussion Questions

How should we balance law enforcement officers’ safety and effectiveness with government transparency and accountability?
What role, if any, should states play in regulating federal law enforcement activities within their borders?
Are there situations in which law enforcement anonymity is justified? If so, what circumstances would warrant it? If not, why not?
How can we ensure both officer safety and individual rights are protected during enforcement operations?
What mechanisms exist beyond visible identification to hold federal agents accountable for their actions?
Does the use of masks by law enforcement affect public trust and community-police relations? Explain your reasoning.
What role should community members play in shaping policies about law enforcement practices in their neighborhoods?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Sources

[1] 2212 VISIBLE Act. 119th Congress (2025).

[2] Sen. Alex Padilla. “Padilla, Booker Unveil New Bill to Require Immigration Officers to Display Clear Identification.” Press Release. 8 Jul. 2025.

[3] Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine. “No Masks for ICE Agents: Virginia Lawmakers Introduce Legislation to Increase Transparency.” FOX 5 DC. 2 Aug. 2025.

[4] No Secret Police Act. S.B. 627. California Legislature (2025).

[5] Sen. Scott Wiener. “Landmark Bill to Ban Extreme Masking By Local & Federal Law Enforcement Heads To the Governor.” Press Release. Sep. 2025.

[6] Alton Telegraph. “New Bill Would Ban Law Enforcement Officers from Hiding Their Faces in Illinois.” 28 Jul. 2025.

[7] Newsweek. “ICE Agents Forced to Wear Visible ID Under New Bill.” 8 Jul. 2025.

[8] Sen. Patty Murray. “Murray, Padilla, Booker, Colleagues Unveil New Bill to Require ICE to Display Clear Identification.” Press Release. 8 Jul. 2025.

[9] American Civil Liberties Union. “How Expanded 287(g) Program Turns Local Police Into Deportation Agents.” 11 Sep. 2025.

[10] New York City Bar Association. “Statement on Wearing of Masks by ICE Agents.” 20 Jun. 2025.

[11] Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine. “Warner, Kaine Push ICE to Require Agents Identify Themselves, Limit Use of Masks and Face Coverings During Enforcement Operations.” Press Release. 2025.

[12] Ibid

[13] Sen. Scott Wiener. “Governor Newsom Signs Senator Wiener’s Ban on Extreme Masking by ICE & Other Law Enforcement.” Press Release. Sep. 2025.

[14] Mina Bloom. “ICE Agents In Chicago Area Who Aren’t Undercover Must Wear Badges Or IDs, Federal Judge Rules.” Block Club Chicago. 10 Oct. 2025.

[15] Francia Garcia Hernandez. “Can Local Officials Stop ICE Agents From Hiding Behind Masks? They’re Trying.” Block Club Chicago. 7 Jul. 2025.

[16] CBS News, “ICE Head Says He Won’t Block Agents from Wearing Masks, Confirms Use of Medicaid Data.” 19 Jul. 2025.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Newsweek. “ICE Agents Forced to Wear Visible ID Under New Bill.” 8 Jul. 2025.

[19] Newsweek. “ICE Agents’ Mask Culture Shift Risks Street Violence: Obama ICE Chief.” 9 Jun. 2025.

[20] Brian R. Marvel, “SB 627: California’s ‘Secret Police’ Bill Endangers Local Officers.” Police1, 14 Oct. 2025.

[21] KCRA. “California Proposal Would Crack Down on Masked Law Enforcement.” 20 Jun. 2025.

[22] Jules Epstein. “No Masks – No Mas.” Voices at Temple. 26 Jun. 2025.

[23] NPR. “Masked and Unmarked: The Quiet Rise of Concealed Immigration Raids.” 10 Jul. 2025.

[24] ABC10. “Legal Analyst: California ‘No Secret Police Act’ Could Trigger Federal Court Fight.” 2025.

[25] Mina Bloom. “ICE Agents In Chicago Area Who Aren’t Undercover Must Wear Badges Or IDs, Federal Judge Rules.” Block Club Chicago. 10 Oct. 2025.

President Trump’s Tariffs Go to Court

Posted on November 5, 2025January 22, 2026 by Scot Wilson

This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, a case which was consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. The cases challenge whether a president can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a Cold War-era statute—to impose sweeping tariffs on imports by declaring an economic “emergency.”¹

Here’s how we got here: In 2025, President Donald Trump’s administration announced broad “Liberation Day” tariffs on most imported goods, citing national security and trade deficits as the emergency. Importers—including the Illinois education-toy company Learning Resources—sued, arguing that IEEPA doesn’t let a president use emergency powers to create general revenue-raising tariffs.² Lower courts issued conflicting rulings and stays,³ and the Supreme Court agreed to take the dispute on an accelerated schedule this fall.⁴

Learning Resources’ Argument

Learning Resources and allied challengers make two big points:

First, they say IEEPA doesn’t authorize tariffs like these because the law is about blocking or regulating specific transactions tied to an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” not rewriting the entire tariff schedule for most imports.⁵
Second, if IEEPA did allow that much, it would raise separation-of-powers problems—letting the president exercise Congress’ taxing and trade powers without clear limits (a nondelegation concern). Their briefs and supporters’ filings stress that Congress must speak clearly before handing over such economy-wide authority.⁶

Observers also note that challengers are likely to invoke the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine,” which requires clear congressional authorization for executive actions with “vast economic and political significance.” If billions or even trillions of dollars in tariffs are at stake, they argue, IEEPA’s general emergency language can’t carry that load.⁷

The Trump Administration’s Argument

The Trump administration defends the tariffs by reading IEEPA broadly: when a president declares a national emergency tied to foreign commerce, the statute lets the president regulate imports—including by imposing tariffs—to respond to the threat. They point to historic precedents where presidents used related authorities in economic emergencies and say courts should defer to the executive on national security judgments.⁸

Supporters also suggest that doctrines limiting agencies (like major questions) shouldn’t hamstring the presidency itself in foreign-affairs or national-security contexts—an area where the executive traditionally enjoys broader discretion.⁹

What Observers and Experts Are Saying

Legal commentators across the spectrum see these cases as a separation-of-powers test. Some, including conservative and libertarian scholars filing amicus briefs, argue that allowing IEEPA to support sweeping tariffs would gut Congress’ constitutional role over taxes and trade. They underscore nondelegation concerns and warn that broad emergency powers can’t replace precise statutes.¹⁰

Other analysts focus on the Supreme Court’s consistency: having used the major questions doctrine to strike down big Biden-era actions, will the justices apply the same standard to a Republican president’s tariff program? Vox’s preview calls the dispute a “loyalty test” for the Court’s stated principles. Meanwhile, SCOTUSblog frames the argument as both economically massive and a crucial check on presidential power.¹¹

Conservative Washington Post columnist George Will adds that the ruling could either bolster or weaken the Court’s role in policing the boundaries between Congress and the president.

What Different Rulings Could Mean

If the Supreme Court sides with Learning Resources: Wide-ranging tariffs imposed under IEEPA could be struck down or limited, forcing the administration to seek new, specific authority from Congress. The decision might also strengthen major questions and nondelegation limits, signaling that presidents (of either party) can’t rely on general emergency laws for huge economic policies. Businesses could see tariff relief and more predictability—but future presidents could have less unilateral leverage in trade fights.

If the Court sides with the administration: The ruling could expand presidential latitude to use emergency powers in trade policy, at least where the executive asserts national security reasons. That outcome might weaken the major questions doctrine in the presidential (as opposed to agency) context and encourage future administrations to use emergency statutes for big economic moves without fresh congressional approval. Markets could face more uncertainty as tariff policy and economic policy shift with each administration.

If the Court issues a narrow decision: The justices might resolve only part of the dispute—e.g., reading IEEPA to permit some targeted trade measures but not across-the-board tariffs—or send issues back to lower courts, leaving short-term uncertainty but clarifying which tools presidents can use and where Congress must act.¹²

Discussion Questions

What have you heard about tariffs? How have they impacted you, your family, and your community?
What are the strongest points in Learning Resources’ argument against a president’s authority to impose tariffs? Do you find them convincing? Why or why not?
How does the Trump administration justify using IEEPA for its tariff policy? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not?
How does this case reflect the Constitution’s system of checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches?
What does this case reveal about how emergency powers can be used—or potentially abused—in a democracy?
The major questions doctrine says that major economic decisions require clear congressional approval. Do you think the Supreme Court should apply this doctrine equally to all presidents? Why or why not?
If you were a Supreme Court justice, how would you decide this case? What principles or values would guide your reasoning?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Sources

[1] Supreme Court of the United States, November 2025 Argument Calendar: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalNovember2025.pdf

[2] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-declines-speed-up-decision-taking-up-fight-over-trump-tariffs-2025-06-20/

[3] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/b9c77788211d96f59d253f6c011d69cb

[4] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/learning-resources-inc-v-trump/

[5] U.S. Supreme Court Docket, No. 24-1287, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1287.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] Petitioners’ Certiorari Filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1287/363370/20250617121408066_No-___Learning_Resources_Petition_For_A_Writ_Of_Certiorari_Before_Judgment.pdf

[8] U.S. Supreme Court Docket, No. 24-1287, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1287.html

[9] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/trumps-tariffs-face-supreme-court-scrutiny/

[10] Ibid.

[11] Vox: https://www.vox.com/politics/466510/supreme-court-trump-tariffs-loyalty-test-major-questions

[11] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/24-1287

Media Literacy is Crucial for Young Citizens

Posted on October 31, 2025January 22, 2026 by Scot Wilson

In a world overflowing with information, teaching our students in grades 7-12 to be discerning consumers and creators of media isn’t just a good idea—it’s an imperative for the future of our democracy. As educators, we have a vital role in equipping students with the skills to navigate the complex landscape of news and information, fostering active, responsible citizenship and meaningful engagement in deliberative democracy. Media Literacy Week is a good reminder that helping to develop news literacy is a responsibility of all educators.

Think about the sheer volume of “news” your students encounter daily. It’s not just the evening broadcast or a printed newspaper anymore—and for young people it is rarely those things. It’s TikTok scrolls, Instagram stories, YouTube explainers, and an endless stream of links shared by friends. Without a critical lens, it’s incredibly easy for misinformation, biased reporting, or even outright propaganda to be accepted as truth. This isn’t just about identifying fake news; it’s about understanding the nuances of reporting, recognizing different perspectives, and questioning the sources behind the information.

The Pillars of News Media Literacy

So, what does news media literacy look like in practice for our students? It encompasses several key areas:

Source Evaluation: Who created this information? What are their credentials? What is their agenda or funding? This goes beyond a simple “Is it Fox or CNN?” It delves into the underlying motivations and potential biases of all media producers, from individual influencers to major news organizations. Teaching students to look for “About Us” pages and author bios, to read laterally about sources by researching them online, and even to research the history of a publication can be incredibly insightful.
Identifying Bias (Overt and Subtle): Bias isn’t always a malicious intent to deceive. It can be inherent in the language used, the stories chosen, the images presented, and even the framing of a headline. Help students understand the difference between objective reporting and opinion pieces, and how even “straight news” can subtly convey a particular viewpoint through word choice or emphasis.
Understanding Media Formats and Purpose: A viral meme might be entertaining, but it’s rarely a reliable source of in-depth information. Students need to differentiate between news articles, editorials, advertisements, documentaries, and social media posts. Each format has a different purpose and level of journalistic rigor.
Fact-Checking and Corroboration: In an age of deepfakes and manipulated images, the ability to fact-check is paramount. Encourage students to read laterally—meaning, when they encounter a claim, they open new tabs and see what other reputable sources say about it. Tools like Snopes, PolitiFact, and even a quick Google search with critical keywords can be invaluable.

Media Literacy and the Health of Our Democracy

The connection between media literacy and active citizenship is undeniable. A healthy deliberative democracy relies on an informed populace capable of engaging in respectful debate, making sound judgments, and holding leaders accountable. If citizens cannot distinguish credible information from partisan spin or outright falsehoods, their ability to participate effectively in civic life is severely hampered.

When students understand how news is constructed, they become less susceptible to emotional manipulation and more capable of forming their own well-reasoned opinions. They learn to question, to seek out diverse perspectives, and to engage in constructive dialogue, even when confronted with opposing viewpoints. These are not just academic skills; they are life skills essential for navigating an increasingly complex world and for strengthening the fabric of our society.

Integrating media literacy into your curriculum—which Close Up can help you do through our professional development training for educators and our innovative Civil Discourse Credential for students—doesn’t require a complete overhaul. It can be woven into English language arts through analyzing articles, into social studies through examining historical propaganda, or even into science by dissecting how scientific claims are presented in popular media.

Let’s empower our students to be more than just consumers of information. Let’s help them become critical thinkers, responsible citizens, and active participants in shaping our shared future. The future of our democracy depends on it.

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

A Fragile Hope: What the New Israel–Hamas Ceasefire Means for Peace

Posted on October 23, 2025January 22, 2026 by Scot Wilson

After nearly two years of devastating war in Gaza, Israel and Hamas have reached a new ceasefire agreement that many hope could mark a turning point. Under the deal, which President Donald Trump engaged in personal diplomacy and negotiations to secure, Hamas has released all remaining living Israeli hostages while Israel has freed more than 1,900 Palestinian prisoners.¹

This round of conflict began after Hamas launched a terrorist attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages.² In response, Israel launched a military offensive on Gaza, killing more than 60,000 Palestinians according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.³ But for the first time in many months, the guns have quieted. Aid trucks carrying food, medicine, and fuel are moving into Gaza, and both sides are tentatively beginning to talk about what comes next. Yet, while this moment brings relief, it also raises hard questions about whether peace can truly last.

WATCH: President Trump Addresses Israel’s Parliament, Calling the Ceasefire the “Historic Dawn of a New Middle East”

What the Ceasefire Includes

The ceasefire terms are meant to reduce immediate suffering and build trust. Hamas agreed to release the hostages it still held and to return the bodies of others who died in captivity.⁴ In exchange, Israel freed thousands of Palestinian detainees and began pulling back some of its troops from heavily populated areas of Gaza.⁵ The agreement also allows for large amounts of humanitarian aid to enter the territory under the supervision of the United Nations and international partners.⁶ Although the ceasefire has brought a sense of hope, it is not necessarily a permanent peace. The agreement leaves major issues unresolved—such as who will ultimately govern Gaza, how Hamas’ weapons will be handled, and what role Israel will continue to play in the territory’s security.⁷ In that sense, this is a first phase, a breathing space that might either open the door to diplomacy or close again if trust breaks down.

What Comes Next

The next steps in the peace process will determine whether this ceasefire becomes a foundation for peace or just another temporary truce. The immediate goal is to maintain the pause and prevent violations. If either side resumes violence, the agreement could collapse. Diplomats from Egypt, Qatar, and the United States are working to keep communication open and to design a longer-term plan that would address Gaza’s reconstruction and future governance.

Gaza itself faces an enormous rebuilding task. The war destroyed much of its infrastructure—homes, hospitals, power grids, and schools—and hundreds of thousands of residents remain displaced. As aid workers begin distributing supplies, international agencies are calling for more consistent access and long-term investment.⁸ Political talks will likely focus on whether the Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, could take on a larger role in Gaza’s administration.⁹ Some leaders hope a technocratic government supported by the UN might stabilize the region. But years of mistrust and internal Palestinian divisions make such transitions uncertain.

READ: “Who Governs the Palestinians?” from the Council on Foreign Relations

How People View the Ceasefire Deal

Reactions to the ceasefire have been both hopeful and cautious. Supporters see it as a humanitarian victory that has already saved lives. They argue that the return of the living hostages, the release of prisoners, and the renewed flow of aid show that diplomacy can work even after bitter violence. They also see the ceasefire as an important step toward a broader peace that includes rebuilding Gaza, improving daily life for Palestinians, and reducing regional tensions.

Those who are more skeptical, however, warn that the agreement is too vague and could unravel quickly. Some Israelis fear that Hamas will use the pause to rearm, reorganize, and regain control. Others argue that the deal offers too few guarantees for Israel’s security or that it rewards Hamas’ tactics of hostage-taking. On the other side, many Palestinians worry that the ceasefire changes little about the daily realities of occupation, displacement, and limited sovereignty. They believe true peace will require deeper political change and recognition of Palestinian rights, including voting rights and authority over their own territory.¹⁰ Both sides know that previous ceasefires have failed, which fuels some worries about whether this one can hold.

The Role of the United States in the Ceasefire

The United States has played a central role in brokering and supporting this agreement. American diplomats worked closely with Israel, Egypt, and Qatar to finalize the terms and are now helping monitor compliance. The Trump administration hopes that U.S. involvement will keep both parties at the table and prevent a return to all-out war.¹¹ Washington is also expected to coordinate much of the humanitarian aid and reconstruction funding that will flow into Gaza, using its influence to ensure that the aid reaches civilians rather than armed groups.

At the same time, the United States faces a delicate balancing act. It must maintain its longstanding alliance with Israel while demonstrating concern for Palestinian civilians and a commitment to long-term peace. Within the United States, public opinion remains divided and policymakers face pressure from multiple directions—some calling for stronger support for Israel’s security, others urging the United States to push harder for Palestinian statehood. Internationally, the United States will have to work with regional powers like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia to make the ceasefire sustainable and to restart broader peace talks.

A Cautious Path Forward

For people in Israel, the ceasefire brings the hostages home. For people in Gaza, it brings a rare moment of quiet and a promise of food and medical aid. After years of suffering, families have been reunited, aid is arriving, and communities can begin to rebuild. But peace in the Middle East has often proven fragile. The future will depend on whether both sides can move beyond short-term gains and toward political solutions that guarantee security, dignity, and justice for all.

Discussion Questions

Before the ceasefire was announced, what had you learned about the conflict? Where did you get most of your information?
What are the key elements of the new ceasefire between Israel and Hamas? Why do you think each side agreed to those terms?
Supporters and skeptics of the ceasefire have very different views about what it achieves. Which arguments do you find most convincing? Why?
How should the United States respond if Hamas violates the ceasefire? If Israel violates the ceasefire?
How should governments and international organizations balance the need for security with the responsibility to protect civilians during and after a conflict?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Sources

[1] Associated Press: apnews.com/article/9e4921406e846189c90144609c1a9530; apnews.com/article/ded7055617d60579a1c7ae730bd1461c

[2] ABC7 Los Angeles: https://abc7.com/post/israel-says-hamas-hands-first-7-hostages-red-cross-part-gaza-ceasefire/17995407/#:~:text=The%20war%20began%20when%20Hamas,killed%20and%20251%20taken%20hostage

[3] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestinians-has-israels-gaza-offensive-killed-2025-10-07/

[4] Reuters: reuters.com/world/middle-east/israelis-honour-trump-hostages-return-home-two-years-after-their-capture-2025-10-12

[5] Reuters: reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-agree-gaza-ceasefire-return-hostages-2025-10-09

[6] Center for Strategic & International Studies: csis.org/analysis/what-comes-next-israel-hamas-ceasefire

[7] Reuters: reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-aims-surge-aid-medical-supplies-into-gaza-once-ceasefire-starts-2025-10-09

[8] Reuters: reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-agree-gaza-ceasefire-return-hostages-2025-10-09

[9] Reuters: reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-authority-ready-help-trumps-gaza-effort-succeed-says-official-2025-10-12

[10] Reuters: reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-suggests-hamas-has-approval-internal-security-operations-gaza-2025-10-13

[11] PBS: pbs.org/newshour/world/analysis-trump-achieved-a-breakthrough-gaza-ceasefire-but-a-tough-road-lies-ahead

The Trump Administration Advocates Changes at the Smithsonian

Posted on October 6, 2025January 22, 2026 by Scot Wilson

On August 12, 2025, the White House sent a letter to the Smithsonian Institution stating that it would be “leading a comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions.”¹ This review aims to ensure alignment with President Donald Trump’s vision to “celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.”²

The Smithsonian, which includes 21 museums and 14 education and research centers, is the largest museum and research complex in the world.³ Centered in Washington, D.C., Smithsonian facilities attract millions of visitors each year to learn about American history, natural sciences, technology, art, and culture. The Institution welcomes visitors as it seeks to execute its stated mission: “The increase and diffusion of knowledge.”

The Smithsonian receives significant federal funding, with approximately 62% of its budget coming from an annual congressional appropriation and federal grants and contracts. Yet, it operates outside of the federal government as an independent body.⁴ It is governed by a bipartisan Board of Regents whose 17 members include the sitting chief justice of the Supreme Court and the vice president of the United States. Six members of Congress (three senators and three representatives, which presently include both Democrats and Republicans) also serve on the Board. The other nine regents are members of the general public. The regents work together to govern and oversee the Smithsonian and appoint a secretary to manage it.⁵

The August 12 letter is in accordance with President Trump’s March 27 executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” This executive order expresses concern about efforts to rewrite American history by “replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth” and by painting America’s founding in a negative light. The order questions the Smithsonian’s approach to teaching American history and criticizes the Institution for coming “under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” and for promoting narratives “that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.”⁶

In response to the Trump administration’s letter, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch III reasserted his organization’s independence and control over museum content. Bunch said that the Smithsonian would do an internal review of its materials and programming and report those findings to the White House. However, White House official Lindsey Halligan argued that the Smithsonian “cannot credibly audit itself,” noting: “By definition, an ‘audit’ must be neutral and objective.”⁷

It is not yet clear what this demand from the Trump administration will mean on the ground at Smithsonian facilities. Prior to the release of the August 12 letter, the National Museum of American History altered references to President Trump’s two impeachments during his first term in an exhibit titled “The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden.” The exhibit includes information on the impeachments of Presidents Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton and details of the Watergate scandal and President Richard Nixon’s resignation. In a statement to NPR, the Smithsonian said it chose to restore the exhibit back to its 2008 appearance and that the information about President Trump’s 2019 and 2021 impeachments were only a temporary addition pending a more extensive exhibit update.⁸ The museum has since restored references to the impeachments, although in a less prominent location.

Proponents of the White House’s actions at Smithsonian facilities believe that cultural institutions, such as museums, that are mostly paid for by taxpayers should largely represent the country’s progress, innovations, and achievements. In a Truth Social post, President Trump commented, “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been—Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.”⁹ In the March 27 executive order, he noted, “It is the policy of my Administration to restore Federal sites dedicated to history, including parks and museums, to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing.” The 1776 Project, a conservative political action committee that focuses on bias in education, also argues that focusing on identity, such as race and gender, in education spaces is divisive and anti-American.¹⁰ Proponents of intervention in museums agree and contend that Smithsonian museums should not focus on these topics.

Opponents, meanwhile, characterize the administration’s actions as altering museum content for political gain, which they argue is wrong from either right or left. They argue that museums are educational facilities that should be allowed to operate independently and outside of the political sphere. The American Historical Association (AHA), a consortium of over 10,000 historians, released a statement in support of the museum historians and curators who design the exhibits, noting: “Political interference into professional curatorial practices and museum … content places at risk the integrity and accuracy of historical interpretation and stands to erode public trust in our shared institutions.”¹¹ As the AHA and other critics argue, interference in museum content and programming undermines the Smithsonian’s autonomy and status as a nonpartisan educational institution.

Amy Sherald, the artist who painted the official portrait of former First Lady Michelle Obama, withdrew her upcoming fall show at the National Portrait Gallery after she was informed that “internal concerns had been raised” about including one of her works depicting a transgender Statue of Liberty, leading to discussions about removing the work from the exhibition or contextualizing it with a video.¹² Her exhibition, “American Sublime,” which included portraits of many Black and LGBTQ+ individuals, was set to open at the National Portrait Gallery in September.

Discussion Questions

How should museums decide what information to highlight in exhibits?
Should the president have a role in determining what federally funded museums display and educate the public about? Why or why not?
Should federally funded museums be used to inspire patriotism? Why or why not? And if so, how should they address difficult or shameful aspects of U.S. history?
Should museums avoid displaying information about race and identity to avoid pushback from people who believe these topics are divisive? Why or why not?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Sources

Featured Image: REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon

[1] The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/08/letter-to-the-smithsonian-internal-review-of-smithsonian-exhibitions-and-materials/

[2] The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/08/letter-to-the-smithsonian-internal-review-of-smithsonian-exhibitions-and-materials/

[3] Smithsonian Institution: https://www.si.edu/about

[4] Smithsonian Institution: https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/factsheets/facts-about-smithsonian-institution-short; New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/03/arts/design/smithsonian-bunch-trump.html

[5] Smithsonian Institution: https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/smithsonian-statement

[6] The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/

[7] ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/smithsonian-secretary-reaffirms-institutions-independence-response-white-houses/story?id=125296667

[8] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2025/08/01/g-s1-80602/smithsonian-impeachment-trump

[9] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-targets-smithsonian-again-says-it-focuses-too-much-how-bad-slavery-was-2025-08-20/

[10] The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/; 1776 Project PAC: https://1776projectpac.com/priorities/

[11] ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/smithsonian-secretary-reaffirms-institutions-independence-response-white-houses/story?id=125296667

[12] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/arts/design/amy-sherald-smithsonian-censorship.html

Responding to Increasing Political Violence: Addressing Partisan Hate in Schools

Posted on September 16, 2025September 19, 2025 by Scot Wilson

The murder of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk on September 10 was another act of political violence at a time when political violence seems to be on the rise in the United States.¹ A poll released in July 2025 found that three-quarters of Americans view political violence as a serious threat, with the number reaching almost 90% among Democratic voters and almost 60% among Republican voters.² And, according to polling from YouGov, “Most Americans across the political spectrum say political violence is never justified, but younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to disagree.”³

In addition to the assassination of Kirk, a series of other high-profile acts of political violence have stirred the public consciousness about this issue. There were two assassination attempts against now-President Donald Trump in 2024, including one at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, in which a bullet struck Trump’s ear and one audience member was killed. Earlier this year, Melissa Hortman, a state Democratic lawmaker in Minnesota, was killed along with her husband, and another Democratic official, John Hoffman, was attacked along with his wife. In April, a California man pleaded guilty to attempting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his home in Maryland. The same month, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) and his family had their home set ablaze by an arsonist. On January 6, 2021, a violent mob stormed the Capitol and threatened to attack members of Congress and to hang then-Vice President Mike Pence in order to stop the certification of the 2020 election results.⁴ In addition to these high-profile cases, Reuters has identified at least 300 acts of politically motivated violence since 2021⁵ and argues that the United States is experiencing the most political violence since the 1960s and 1970s.⁶

The story of how we got here is too long, too complicated, and—at the moment—too hard to state clearly for this post to explore. But we know that a mixture of partisan media, vitriolic political campaigns, and algorithms on social media that stoke our anger and fear all play leading roles. And, just as there is no one path that led us here, it is unlikely that there is a single path that will lead us from this low point in U.S. political culture. But schools can and must play a role in shaping a future in which basic tenets of free speech, free thought, and democracy are valued and protected.

Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says, “Most partisans hold major misbeliefs about the other party’s preferences that lead them to think there is far less shared policy belief. This perception gap is highest among progressive activists, followed closely by extreme conservatives: in other words, the people who are most involved in civic and political life hold the least accurate views of the other side’s beliefs.”⁷

This is so, at least in part, because people tend not to talk about political and social issues outside of their immediate networks or their online bubbles, leaving significant room for mischaracterization and misunderstanding. Schools can help students and families confront this challenge in many ways. A few ideas that teachers and school leaders should consider include:

Holding regular dialogues and deliberations about challenging political and social issues. By engaging in deliberation, students have shown an increased mutual respect across ideological lines, with 89% of participants at 2024’s America in One Room: The Youth Vote agreeing with the following statement after deliberation: “I learned a lot about people very different from me—about what they and their lives are like.”⁸
Hosting panels or speaker series on contemporary issues to expose students to different perspectives on those issues.
Embedding media literacy and, especially, social media literacy in as many courses and areas of curriculum as possible.
Embedding democratic practices such as participatory budgeting and meaningful student government in the school culture and calendar.
Finding opportunities for students in different schools and different parts of the political spectrum to interact routinely, in person or virtually.
Including requirements for exploring an ideologically diverse range of sources in any inquiry projects in humanities classes.

This is, of course, only a partial list. And all of us in education recognize that most of these steps do not come without costs. There may be public pushback for speakers and panels or holding dialogues about certain topics, there are always budgetary constraints when it comes to participatory budgeting and student government, and curricular time is precious. However, we all must do what we can to confront political violence from whatever position in the world we hold. And educators hold a position that could allow for the shaping of a new, better political culture.

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Sources

Featured Image: REUTERS/Jim Urquhart

^[1] Brookings Institution: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/political-violence-in-the-us/

^[2] National Public Radio: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/01/nx-s1-5452527/poll-democracy-trump-immigration

^[3] YouGov: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kirk-americans-political-violence-poll

^[4] PBS News: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-recent-political-violence-in-the-u-s-fits-into-a-long-dark-history

^[5] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-cases-political-violence-roil-us-ahead-contentious-election-2024-10-21/

^[6] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-politics-violence/

^[7] Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-the-united-states-what-the-research-says?lang=en

^[8] Close Up Foundation and Stanford University Deliberative Democracy Lab: https://www.closeup.org/a1r-deliberation-results/

The Rise and Impact of Phone Bans in U.S. Public Schools

Posted on September 12, 2025October 13, 2025 by Scot Wilson

In recent years, cell phones have moved from novelty to necessity in daily life, but in U.S. public schools, they’ve also become a battleground. Facing growing concerns about distraction, mental health, and safety, state legislatures and school boards across the country are implementing bans on student phone use during the school day. Supporters say the restrictions restore focus in the classroom and encourage healthier habits; critics worry the rules go too far, limiting freedom and complicating emergency communication.

The Current Landscape

As of 2025, at least 35 states have enacted some form of restriction on student cell phone use, with many others considering new legislation.¹ Recent state-level actions include:

Virginia Executive Order 33: In July 2024, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) enforced a statewide “bell-to-bell” ban, requiring students to keep cell phones off for the entire school day. The executive order went into effect in January 2025.²
Massachusetts S.2561: In July 2025, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill mandating all school districts prohibit student cell phone use throughout the day. The bill has not yet advanced in the Massachusetts House, so the policy is not currently in effect. If it is enacted, it is set to begin in fall 2026.³
Missouri SB 68: In July 2025, Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) signed into law a statewide ban on cell phones in K-12 schools, requiring students to keep devices off during the entire school day. The law went into effect with the start of the 2025–26 academic year.⁴

Alongside legislation, many districts have turned to practical tools like Yondr pouches, forcibly locking phones away until dismissal.

Support and Criticism

Research on cell phone bans shows mixed—but as supporters note, promising—results. Some studies link reduced phone use to better academic performance and improved mental health among students.⁵ Teachers often report fewer disruptions and incidents of cyberbullying when phones are removed from the classroom, and parents in advocacy groups see restrictions as a way to build healthier digital boundaries for teens. In some cases, schools also report stronger peer-to-peer interaction, as students spend more time engaging face-to-face.⁶Supporters of cell phone bans argue that these benefits are worth the trade-off: according to a Pew Research Center survey, 68% of U.S. adults back bans during class, with 91% citing fewer distractions and 70% pointing to the development of better social skills as major reasons.⁷

As Emily Boddy of Smartphone Free Childhood notes, “If kids know that there are other kids who have access to their phones … there’s always a part of their attention that’s like, ‘What am I missing on Snapchat?”⁸For advocates, bell-to-bell bans offer relief from that constant anxiety.

Critics, however, argue that these school cell phone policies are blunt instruments. Parents raise concerns about safety and the need for immediate communication in emergencies, a sentiment reflected in Pew Research Center’s finding that six in ten opponents say this is their major reason for resisting bans.⁹ Others emphasize how difficult the rules can be to enforce, with districts facing long lines, stolen pouches, or creative student workarounds.

Annette Campbell Anderson of Johns Hopkins University emphasizes that the original purpose of student cell phones has been misunderstood in these debates. “Most parents gave their kids cell phones so they could have immediate access to communicate,” she explains, noting that in an era of school shootings, phones have become essential for safety as well as for managing the hectic schedules of modern families. “It had nothing to do with giving kids access to video games and platforms like Instagram and Snapchat. That was an unintentional consequence.”¹⁰From this perspective, critics argue that school restrictions may overlook these core reasons parents provided phones in the first place, and that bans risk treating a complex social issue as a matter solely for schools to solve.

In the Classroom

The questions raised by cell phone bans in schools offer educators an opportunity to turn policy into civic inquiry. Students can weigh in on questions of authority, personal rights, and collective responsibility:

Should schools have the power to regulate personal devices? Should state government?
Do cell phone bans protect mental health and improve learning? Or do they infringe on student freedoms?
Are partial restrictions, such as allowing phones at lunch but not during class, ineffective or a more balanced compromise?
How do U.S. bans compare with international approaches, such as those in France or the United Kingdom? Unlike the patchwork of state- and district-level rules in the United States, France has enforced a nationwide ban in middle schools since 2018. The United Kingdom has adopted government-backed guidance leading nearly all schools to restrict phones throughout the school day.

For guidance on structuring classroom debates tailored to younger students, see our cell phones in schools Middle School discussion, and for strategies appropriate to older students, check out our cell phone policies in schools High School discussion.

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Close Up is proud to be the nation’s leading nonprofit civic education organization, working with schools and districts across the country since 1971. If you would like to partner with us or learn more about our experiential learning programs, professional development, or curriculum design and consulting, contact us today!

Sources