Author: Scot Wilson

President Trump’s Tariffs Go to Court

Posted on 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

  1. What have you heard about tariffs? How have they impacted you, your family, and your community?
  2. 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?
  3. How does the Trump administration justify using IEEPA for its tariff policy? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not?
  4. How does this case reflect the Constitution’s system of checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches?
  5. What does this case reveal about how emergency powers can be used—or potentially abused—in a democracy?
  6. 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?
  7. 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

Featured Images: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
[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 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

 

Sources

Featured Images: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency | allaboutvision.com 

 

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

Posted on 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

  1. Before the ceasefire was announced, what had you learned about the conflict? Where did you get most of your information?
  2. What are the key elements of the new ceasefire between Israel and Hamas? Why do you think each side agreed to those terms?
  3. Supporters and skeptics of the ceasefire have very different views about what it achieves. Which arguments do you find most convincing? Why?
  4. How should the United States respond if Hamas violates the ceasefire? If Israel violates the ceasefire?
  5. 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

Featured Image: REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon
[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 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

  1. How should museums decide what information to highlight in exhibits?
  2. Should the president have a role in determining what federally funded museums display and educate the public about? Why or why not?
  3. 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?
  4. 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 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 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.6 Supporters 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?”8 For 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.”10 From 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

Featured Image: Dobrila Vignjevic/via Getty Images
[1] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/schools-cellphone-bans-social-media-parents-d6464fbfdfae83189c752fe0c40fd060
[2] Office of The Governor of Virginia: https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/news-releases/2025/may/name-1046981-en.html
[3] Commonwealth of Massachusetts: https://malegislature.gov/PressRoom/Detail?pressReleaseId=238
[4] St. Louis University: https://www.primecenter.org/prime-blog/sb68
[5] Kaiser Family Foundation: https://www.kff.org/mental-health/a-look-at-state-efforts-to-ban-cellphones-in-schools-and-implications-for-youth-mental-health/
[6] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2025/09/01/nx-s1-5495531/more-states-now-ban-cell-phones-in-schools
[7] Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/14/most-americans-back-cellphone-bans-during-class-but-fewer-support-all-day-restrictions/#why-americans-support-cellphone-bans-during-class
[8] Education Week: https://www.edweek.org/technology/to-ban-or-not-to-ban-two-experts-sound-off-on-school-cellphone-restrictions/2025/06
[9] Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/16/americans-support-for-school-cellphone-bans-has-ticked-up-since-last-year/
[10] Johns Hopkins University: https://hub.jhu.edu/2024/09/23/school-cell-phone-bans-qa/