The Rankings on Integrity in State Education — published by Defending Education — scored all 50 states and Washington, D.C., on five hot-button education issues: parental rights, DEI, gender and sexuality policies, teacher union restrictions, and foreign influence.

The comprehensive assessment represents a significant shift in how education policy is evaluated at the state level. While traditional education rankings have historically focused on academic outcomes and resource allocation, this new framework centers on the cultural and ideological battles that have dominated school board meetings and state legislatures across the country in recent years.

Red states dominated the top slots. Tennessee claimed first place, followed by Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, and Iowa.

“FOR THE FIRST TIME, PARENTS HAVE A SINGLE RESOURCE TO SEE HOW THEIR STATE HANDLES THE ISSUES THEY’VE VOICED CONCERNS ABOUT OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.”

Washington, D.C., ranked dead last. Rhode Island, California, Oregon, and Illinois rounded out the bottom five.

The stark geographic divide in the rankings reflects the deepening partisan split over education policy in America. The results illustrate how red and blue states have pursued dramatically different approaches to governing their public schools, particularly on issues related to parental involvement and curriculum content.

The report does not measure test scores or graduation rates. Instead, it evaluates how states respond to parental demands for transparency — particularly on secret gender transitions, sex education opt-outs, and DEI curriculum in classrooms.

This methodology marks a departure from conventional education assessments, prioritizing policy alignment with parental concerns over traditional academic metrics. The approach acknowledges that many families now view their state’s stance on these cultural issues as equally important to — or even more important than — standardized test performance when evaluating the quality of their children’s education.

Paul Runko, senior director of strategic initiatives at Defending Education, said the rankings empower parents to “evaluate local schools and hold leaders accountable at the ballot box.”

The report’s timing comes as education policy continues to emerge as a decisive factor in state and local elections nationwide. From gubernatorial races to school board contests, candidates’ positions on parental rights and classroom content have increasingly determined electoral outcomes, particularly in suburban districts where parents have mobilized around these concerns.

Four states tied for the top parental rights score: North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Each earned points for policies requiring parental consent before schools facilitate student gender transitions or deliver sex education.

These parental rights provisions represent legislative responses to incidents where parents discovered significant decisions about their children were made without their knowledge or involvement. The scoring methodology rewarded states that have codified parental notification and consent requirements into law, rather than leaving such decisions to individual school district discretion.

On teacher union restrictions, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina received perfect scores. The report credited laws governing collective bargaining, strike restrictions, and work authorization requirements.

Iowa, Missouri, and West Virginia topped the DEI category. The report praised them for restricting DEI initiatives, restorative justice programs, and teacher diversity mandates.

The DEI category reflects ongoing debates about whether schools should incorporate explicit diversity training and social justice frameworks into their operations, or whether such programs represent ideological indoctrination that extends beyond core academic instruction. States received higher scores for implementing clear boundaries around these programs.

Alabama, Florida, and Indiana tied for the highest scores on gender and sexuality policies. The report examined state bans on LGBTQ curriculum, restrictions on transgender athletes in women’s sports, and anti-bullying laws related to gender identity.

Seven red states — Alabama, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas — received perfect scores for blocking Chinese government influence in education, including Confucius Institutes.

The foreign influence category addresses growing national security concerns about how foreign governments, particularly China, may seek to shape American education through funding and cultural programming. Many of these states have passed legislation specifically targeting such arrangements in recent years.

Dr. Terry Stoops, director of government affairs at Defending Education, congratulated the top-ranked states in a statement to Fox News Digital.

“IF YOUR STATE IS AT THE TOP OF DEFENDING EDUCATION’S RANKINGS, CONGRATULATIONS! YOU LIVE IN A STATE WITH PUBLIC SCHOOL POLICIES THAT PRIORITIZE SOUND ACADEMICS OVER SHAMELESS ANTICS.”

Stoops blamed elected leaders in the lowest-scoring states for having “sacrificed educational excellence at the altar of social justice.”

“For parents in bottom-feeder states who value rigor over ridiculousness, the choice is either fight or flight,” he said.

The report aims to give parents a clearer picture of where their state stands on education battles — and how those policies could shape their children’s futures.

As families continue to make decisions about where to live and whether to keep their children in public schools, such rankings may increasingly influence both migration patterns and enrollment trends. The report provides a roadmap for understanding the vast policy differences that now exist across state lines in American public education.

Neville Singham, who sold software firm ThoughtWorks for $785 million in 2017, distributed the funds through six nonprofits to roughly 2,000 organizations between 2017 and 2025, per a 2026 House Financial Services subcommittee hearing examining what lawmakers called “Trojan Horses” operating inside America.

The largest single recipient was the Justice and Education Fund, Inc., a New York grant-making hub, which received $68.7 million. The People’s Forum, a New York organizing and events hub, received $22.44 million. Tricontinental Ltd., a Massachusetts-based research and messaging outfit, received $16.76 million, and CodePink, the anti-war activist group, received $1.33 million.

CodePink co-founder Jodie Evans is married to Singham. CBS News and multiple outlets report CodePink softened its public position on China — including on Uyghur genocide allegations — after the funding relationship began.

Singham is under grand jury investigation in the Southern District of New York, with the inquiry reportedly expanding from Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) violations into tax and money-laundering questions.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) and its ANSWER Coalition arm operate in the same organizing space — anti-ICE, anti-Israel, and pro-Cuba/Venezuela campaigns — and share personnel and platforms with the Singham-funded outlets, though PSL’s own funding is less thoroughly documented.

Congressional witnesses Christine Balling and Michael Gonzalez characterized the network’s aim as working to “disrupt and destroy from within.”

Documented Common Cause

Islamist-linked and far-left networks have repeatedly co-organized on two issues: opposition to Israel and opposition to immigration enforcement. CAIR chapters, PSL/ANSWER, and Singham-funded outlets have appeared as co-sponsors or co-promoters of the same protest actions and campaigns since 2023, per event listings and the organizations’ own public materials.

Both clusters also independently produce messaging that foreign adversary states — China on Xinjiang and Taiwan, Iran on Israel, Cuba on sanctions — would regard as favorable.

In August 2026, the State Department sanctioned Autistici/Inventati, an Italy-based encrypted communications provider, after finding it supplied digital infrastructure used by both Portland-area Antifa accounts and by accounts linked to Hamas, PFLP, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. That represents a documented shared-vendor relationship, not a command relationship.

What Comes Next

Four developments will determine whether the far-left funding network faces legal consequences:

The outcome of the SDNY Singham grand jury, which will either produce an indictment establishing FARA or tax violations or close without charges.

Whether Florida’s CAIR designation proceeds and whether any federal designation follows the Texas and Florida state actions.

Further A/I Collective-style disclosures showing shared infrastructure or funding across the Islamist and far-left clusters.

DoD FARA enforcement patterns following the 2025 Bondi memo and NSPM-7, which reportedly tightened enforcement.

The analysis concludes that several distinct domestic and foreign-linked networks have documented, sometimes overlapping records of hostility to American constitutional order. At least one of them — CCP united front and IRGC-linked operations — meets the original definition of a fifth column. At least two more — the CAIR/Muslim Brotherhood cluster and the Singham-funded left ecosystem — have court records, government designations, or congressional financial trails that go well beyond ordinary political disagreement.

What is not yet documented is a unified command linking them together.

The deal stems from a 2025 trade agreement in which South Korea pledged $350 billion in U.S. investments in exchange for lower tariffs on its automobiles and auto parts. Wednesday’s announcement delivers on that promise with an 807-mile natural gas pipeline running from Alaska’s North Slope to a southern LNG export terminal.

“This is the project that is going to keep our kids and grandkids in Alaska with a great, bright future.” — Sen. Dan Sullivan

According to the White House, the project will lower local energy costs while delivering a reliable fuel supply for decades. Energy Secretary Chris Wright called it “the largest infrastructure project built in the last 50 years.”

Trump credited Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) for getting the deal done. Sullivan has consistently championed Alaska’s natural gas project and worked shoulder-to-shoulder with the administration to attract South Korean backing.

“That’s why we have a lot of people from Alaska, including a very great governor and your great senator, Dan Sullivan. So, I want to thank, in particular, Dan Sullivan for getting this deal done. This is a great senator who is totally responsible for this pipeline. This is a man that worked with me by shoulder to shoulder. He’s running for office. He’s a spectacular senator, not just for Alaska, he’s great for the world, for our country and the world. What he’s done is so important and he’s got my ear.” — President Trump

Sullivan faces a competitive reelection contest against former Congresswoman Mary Peltola (D-Alaska). Trump’s Oval Office praise comes as Sullivan campaigns on delivering for Alaska.

The Alaska LNG project is expected to create 12,000 construction jobs and provide low-cost energy to Alaskans for 50 to 100 years. Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy called it an “incredible day for the state of Alaska” that “will transform the state.”

White House spokesman Taylor Rogers framed the announcement as part of Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

“President Trump will announce major energy infrastructure investments that deliver on his day one promises to unleash American energy, unlock Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential, and accelerate America’s nuclear energy renaissance. Unlike the Democrats’ energy subtraction policies, this President’s energy dominance agenda continues to cement the United States as the energy capital of the world.” — Taylor Rogers, White House spokesman

Wednesday’s announcement follows Trump’s confirmation a day earlier that Minnesota-based Mesabi Metallics will build the largest steel plant in U.S. history in eastern Iowa.

Sen. Dan Sullivan says the Alaska LNG project could deliver low-cost energy to Alaskans for 50 to 100 years while creating 12,000 construction jobs.

“This is the project that is going to keep our kids and grandkids in Alaska with a great, bright future.”

Watch OAN on OAN Live… pic.twitter.com/dwI0NfamEi

— One America News (@OANN) September 30, 2026

.@GovDunleavy: “This is an incredible day for the state of Alaska… This will transform the state of Alaska.” https://t.co/YbpLPOvbJYpic.twitter.com/kjgubaTHWT

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 30, 2026

On the first day of @POTUS‘ new administration, he asked how we can build the LNG pipeline in Alaska.

Today, we have the answer.

The Alaska LNG Project will be the largest infrastructure project built in the last 50 years.

This is an incredible day for America. pic.twitter.com/FOIH6BwX2K

— Secretary Chris Wright (@SecretaryWright) September 30, 2026

The White House is unveiling these manufacturing and jobs initiatives ahead of November midterm elections.

The stock trading ban passed the House with 13 Democrat votes. It would prohibit members of Congress and their families from buying individual stocks and require 7-14 days’ notice before selling existing holdings. The legislation addresses longstanding concerns about conflicts of interest and insider trading on Capitol Hill, an issue that has drawn bipartisan scrutiny following reports of suspicious trading patterns by lawmakers of both parties in recent years. Public frustration with congressional stock trading has intensified as voters increasingly view such activity as incompatible with public service.

Every Senate Democrat voted against it. The reason? Republicans included a voter ID provision. The addition of the voter ID language transformed what might have been a straightforward ethics reform measure into a flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over voting access and election integrity.

“They don’t want this bill to become law. So they put a poison pill in that they knew would tank it. It’s really trickery. Skullduggery.” — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

But Schumer’s “poison pill” claim falls apart under scrutiny. A 2023 Pew Research Center poll found 83% of Americans — including 71% of Democrats — support laws requiring voters to show identification at the polls. The polling data reveals a significant disconnect between Democratic voters and their elected representatives on this issue, undermining the argument that the provision made the bill politically unpalatable to the party’s base.

A separate 2023 University of Maryland study found 86% support banning members of Congress from trading stocks while in office. The convergence of strong public support for both provisions in the Republican-drafted legislation complicates the Democratic leadership’s strategic calculus and raises questions about whether procedural objections are masking other concerns.

Translation: Democrats just voted against two policies the American people want — to protect their electoral playbook. The decision places Senate Democrats in the uncomfortable position of opposing measures that align with majority opinion across the political spectrum, potentially creating vulnerability in competitive races where voters prioritize government accountability and election integrity.

CNN data analyst Harry Enten laid it out plainly: “Voter ID is NOT controversial in this country. A photo ID to vote is NOT controversial in this country. It is not controversial by party and it is not controversial by race. The vast majority of Americans agree.” His analysis underscores how the political class has diverged from public sentiment on an issue that polling consistently shows bridges partisan and demographic divides.

NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Llamas went further, noting the gap between voters and their elected Democrats: “Voter ID rules do have wide public support, but the vast majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill oppose them.” The observation highlights a tension within the Democratic coalition between grassroots voter attitudes and the party’s institutional position on voting legislation.

Democrats also tanked the Ratepayer Protection Act Wednesday — a bill that passed the House 417-3 with bipartisan support. The measure would require states to consider forcing Big Tech companies to cover utility costs for new data center construction. The near-unanimous House vote reflected broad agreement that the explosive growth of energy-intensive data centers should not burden residential ratepayers with higher electricity bills, making the Senate’s rejection all the more striking to supporters of the legislation.

Senate Democrats blocked it in a procedural vote, 57-43, despite support from Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar (MN), Jon Ossoff (GA), Raphael Warnock (GA), and Maggie Hassan (NH). The defections from Democratic leadership suggest internal disagreement over the tactical decision to block legislation that addresses constituent concerns about utility costs in states experiencing data center expansion.

Schumer called the bill “toothless” and “optional” because it doesn’t mandate state adoption of the standards. His criticism focused on the legislation’s framework, which would provide guidance to states rather than impose federal requirements on utility regulation, an area traditionally left to state discretion.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told Semafor the GOP is “cooked” on the issue: “I think Donald Trump is going to tweet five more times that he loves data centers. And that is the official position of their party. This is panic.” Murphy’s comments reflect Democratic confidence that Republicans will face their own contradictions as they balance support for data center development with constituent concerns about utility costs.

Republicans see the pattern clearly: Democrats are blocking popular legislation — bills their own voters support — to deny the GOP any wins before November. The Republican interpretation frames Wednesday’s votes as part of a broader strategy to prevent the majority party from claiming legislative achievements that could bolster their case to voters in the upcoming election cycle.

The charges remain allegations. The case has not been proven in court.

The debate over who pays for the explosive growth in electricity demand from data centers has become increasingly urgent as artificial intelligence development and cloud computing operations drive unprecedented power consumption nationwide. Energy experts warn that without policy intervention, residential ratepayers could see substantial increases in their monthly utility bills as providers spread infrastructure costs across all customers.

The Ratepayer Protection Act fell on a 57-43 procedural vote Wednesday, short of the 60 needed to break a Democrat filibuster. The same bill passed the House 417-3 just two weeks earlier.

The legislation would have established a voluntary framework allowing states to require data center operators to bear direct responsibility for the electrical infrastructure upgrades and capacity expansions their facilities necessitate. Currently, many utility regulatory structures allow these costs to be distributed across all ratepayers, meaning homeowners and small businesses effectively subsidize the power-intensive operations of major tech companies.

Nicholas Elliot, Action Director of Government Affairs at Innovation Council, slammed the Senate Democrat caucus for killing a measure President Trump championed.

“PRESIDENT TRUMP CHAMPIONED A SIMPLE PRINCIPLE: DATA CENTERS SHOULD PAY THEIR OWN WAY. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OVERWHELMINGLY AGREED. SENATE DEMOCRATS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REACH ACROSS THE AISLE AND MAKE LIFE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR AMERICANS, BUT THEY FAILED TO DO WHAT’S RIGHT.”

The House passed the bill on Sept. 16 by a landslide 417-3 margin. Only three progressive Democrats voted no: Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Summer Lee (D-PA), and Delia Ramirez (D-IL).

The overwhelming House support reflected growing constituent pressure over rising utility costs, particularly in regions where large data center construction has accelerated. States like Virginia, Ohio, and Georgia have seen concentrated data center development, with some localities experiencing double-digit percentage increases in electricity demand over recent years. Local officials in these areas have reported constituent complaints about utility rate hikes coinciding with data center expansion.

206 House Democrats backed the measure. Their Senate colleagues killed it anyway.

The stark contrast between House and Senate Democratic positions highlighted tensions within the party over how to balance consumer protection with technology sector growth. The disconnect also underscored the different political pressures facing representatives in more competitive districts versus senators with statewide constituencies and different electoral timelines.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) called the timing suspicious.

“Given the overwhelming support for this measure in the House, it’s difficult to conclude that Senate Democrats blocked this bill for any reason other than the desire to deny Republicans another win in an election year,” Thune said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) dismissed the bill as a “toothless messaging bill” in a floor speech Tuesday. The New York Democrat argued his caucus wants a federal mandate instead of the voluntary state framework Republicans proposed.

Schumer’s objection centered on the legislation’s opt-in structure, which would have allowed states to choose whether to implement cost-shifting protections rather than imposing a nationwide requirement. Democrats have argued that without a federal mandate, states competing for data center investment might decline to adopt stronger protections, creating a race to the bottom that ultimately fails to protect consumers anywhere.

Four Democrats broke ranks and voted with Republicans: Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

The defections were notable given that all four represent states either experiencing significant data center growth or facing competitive reelection environments where cost-of-living concerns have dominated voter feedback. Their votes reflected the political risk Democrats face in opposing measures with broad public appeal on kitchen-table economic issues.

This marked the second time Democrats blocked the bill. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) objected to an earlier unanimous-consent request from sponsor Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH), claiming it didn’t go far enough.

Husted responded on X, pointing out lawmakers across the political spectrum had backed the House version.

The vote came in the Senate’s final days before the November midterms, with both parties fighting to claim the cost-of-living issue. The chamber the same day defeated a separate stock-trading ban on a 53-47 vote.

The dual defeats on consumer-focused measures in the final pre-election session underscored the deep partisan gridlock paralyzing the Senate even on issues with apparent public consensus. Political analysts noted that both votes will likely feature prominently in campaign advertising as Republicans seek to portray Democrats as out of touch with voter concerns about affordability and fairness in the economy.

The Ratepayer Protection Act was such a no brainer that some of the most conservative and the most liberal representatives all agreed it was good policy.

Senate Democrats are the only ones who refused to take yes for an answer. pic.twitter.com/7JeH4RkTJQ

— Senator Jon Husted (@SenJonHusted) September 30, 2026

The IRGC addressed “the honorable people of the United States of America — the scholars, the students, and the members of the media” in the letter, breaking with decades of messaging aimed only at foreign governments.

The paramilitary force claims the conflict initiated Feb. 28, 2026, by President Trump has resulted in more than 3,600 Iranian deaths, including 400 children. Eight universities, three hospitals, and eight schools have allegedly been bombed, the letter states.

“Yet, despite the unprecedented acts of cruelty and violence suffered by the Iranian nation during this war, the United States and Israel have suffered a crushing defeat, while the Islamic Republic of Iran has achieved a decisive victory,” the IRGC contends.

The Trump administration has maintained that U.S. strikes target only Iranian government infrastructure and military installations — not civilian areas.

“The root of the pain the two nations share is that the evil occupants of the White House, who come to power in elections that are dominated by misleading propaganda campaigns, do not truly represent the American people.”

The IRGC alleges Trump and Israeli officials initially stated their assault objectives were regime change and partition of Iran. After failing to achieve either, they “started blurting out a changing list of objectives, announcing a new objective with every passing week,” according to the letter.

That claim suggests internal IRGC doubt about Trump’s strategy — or an attempt to undermine American resolve as negotiations to end the war drag on.

The paramilitary force reserved its harshest language not for the American people but for what it calls “an elite cohort of powerful Zionist capitalists” who allegedly control U.S. elections and policy.

“American leaders violate not only the rights of other nations but also those of the American people, and they consistently place the interests of this small but powerful cohort above the interests of their own people,” the letter states.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung dismissed the letter as “a farcical and laughable attempt by a desperate group of people.”

This garbage “letter” is a farcical and laughable attempt by a desperate group of people (IRGC) who know they have no other options left because they have failed their own people, so they resort to telling the American people to “vote Democrat.”

People are smarter than that and… https://t.co/yoJIdDOSGS

— Steven Cheung (@StevenCheung47) September 30, 2026

Cheung accused the IRGC of telling Americans to “vote Democrat” — a charge the letter’s framing appears to support. The paramilitary force recycled talking points from the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, asserting the U.S. “has four percent of the world’s population but 20 percent of its prisoners” and that “more than 1,300 Americans are shot and killed by police in the streets” annually.

The IRGC also repeated its decades-old claim that “Death to America” chants at Iranian rallies target American political leadership, not the American people. The letter follows with a 73-year history of alleged U.S. hostility — beginning with the 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government under Mohammad Mosaddegh in favor of a dictatorship under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The paramilitary force took issue with its designation as a foreign terrorist organization — a label it has received from 24 countries plus the European Union.

The IRGC has been implicated in numerous attacks on Americans over decades. An IRGC captain was charged with the November 2022 death of Stephen Troell, an American aid worker and English-language teacher who was killed in Baghdad. IRGC-linked attacks were responsible for the deaths of 17 Americans at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983. Two more Americans were killed when the embassy was attacked in 1984.

One of the most brutal acts attributed to the IRGC and its Hezbollah proxies was the 1984 abduction of CIA station chief William Francis Buckley in Lebanon. Buckley was held in captivity for 15 months and subjected to severe physical and psychological torture before his corpse was dumped along a roadside.

During anti-Islamic Republic protests this past January, the IRGC and other government-aligned paramilitary forces were allegedly responsible for at least 3,000 Iranian deaths — though Time magazine reported the death toll could have been as high as 30,000.

The paramilitary force closed its letter with a sweeping indictment of American decline, claiming “[w]herever in the world a coup is staged, or a popular government is overthrown, the hand of the CIA is unmistakably evident.”

The letter’s direct message to the American people marks an evolution in Iran’s strategy. It may also signal an ongoing attempt by the IRGC to assert involvement in the country’s on-again, off-again negotiations with the Trump administration to bring the war to a close.

The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment as of publication.

The firestorm began when the left-wing New Republic posted an article Sunday claiming “Trump is banning students majoring in degrees that don’t make enough money from taking out college loans.”

“DEGREES FOR SOCIAL WORK, ART, RELIGIOUS STUDIES, TEACHING AIDES, AND MUSIC WILL BE HIT THE HARDEST.”

The post went viral instantly, racking up more than 20 million views and igniting panic across the platform.

“This is actually f***ing evil holy s***,” one post with more than 3 million views said. “In the land of the free, students must only study what the president approves apparently.”

Transgender journalist Katelyn Burns claimed the policy was “about discouraging women from going to college.” Another confused user asked: “Doesn’t this violate the First Amendment?”

Democratic members of Congress and governors joined the pile-on, releasing panicked statements condemning the change.

There’s just one problem: almost none of them understand what the policy actually does.

The rule — already in the works since the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed in July 2025 — restricts federal student loan eligibility for degree programs that leave graduates earning no more than someone with just a high school diploma.

American Enterprise Institute scholar Preston Cooper broke down the reality:

“The bar is median earnings of high school graduates. This rule is very sensibly saying college grads should be at least better off than people who never went to college at all. It’s a crazy low bar.”

“FEWER THAN 5% OF UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE PROGRAMS COULD LOSE ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE NEW RULE.”

Cooper pointed out that the programs most likely to lose eligibility aren’t philosophy or art history — they’re for-profit beauty schools and cosmetology certificate programs.

And even those programs aren’t getting “banned.” Students can still attend them — they’ll just need to pay out of pocket or secure private loans instead of federal taxpayer-backed funding.

The policy applies program-by-program at each individual college or university — not blanket bans on entire majors. The vast majority of English, social work, philosophy, and even gender studies degree programs at different universities will remain eligible for student loans because their average graduates still earn enough to qualify.

Only specific programs at specific institutions that fail the “do no harm” earnings test will lose eligibility.

So the entire hysterical meltdown is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy. The rule doesn’t make any majors ineligible across the board. It doesn’t “ban” degrees. It doesn’t violate the First Amendment.

It simply says taxpayers won’t subsidize degree programs that leave graduates no better off than high school grads.

That’s not “evil” or “authoritarian.” That’s common sense.

This is actually fucking evil holy shit. In the land of the free students must only study what the president approves apparently. https://t.co/Ojj7SSDwn7

— Joe (@electionsjoe) September 28, 2026

This is about discouraging women from going to college https://t.co/0x3v4iUylG

— Katelyn Burns (@transscribe) September 28, 2026

The unprecedented spending underscores how high the stakes have become in what many observers are calling the most consequential ballot fight in California’s modern history. The clash pits progressive advocates who see extreme wealth concentration as a policy failure against technology leaders who argue such measures will fundamentally damage the state’s innovation economy.

Brin’s massive contribution went to Building a Better California, a group opposing Proposition 40 on November’s ballot. The measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on the total assets of any California resident worth over $1 billion.

The proposition represents a novel approach to wealth taxation in the United States, where taxes have traditionally targeted income or capital gains rather than accumulated assets. Supporters argue that billionaires have benefited disproportionately from California’s infrastructure, educational institutions, and business-friendly environment, and should contribute accordingly. Critics counter that taxing unrealized gains and illiquid assets sets a dangerous precedent that could extend to other wealth brackets over time.

With Brin’s estimated net worth at $270 billion, according to Bloomberg’s billionaires index, the tax would trigger a staggering $14 billion bill.

That single tax liability would exceed the annual budgets of several California state agencies and represents more than Brin has donated to philanthropic causes over his entire career. The sheer magnitude of the potential payment helps explain why the Google co-founder has committed such extraordinary resources to defeating the measure, viewing the $102 million campaign expenditure as a rational investment to avoid a far larger financial hit.

Opposition groups have already spent nearly $100 million on advertisements targeting voters. Brin joins several other Silicon Valley billionaires bankrolling the fight against the proposal.

The coordinated opposition campaign has flooded California airwaves with warnings about economic consequences, featuring small business owners, tax policy experts, and middle-class Californians who express concern that today’s billionaire tax could become tomorrow’s millionaire tax. The advertising blitz represents one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in state history, rivaling spending on past battles over property taxes and education funding.

“I fled socialism with my family in 1979 and know the devastating, oppressive society it created in the Soviet Union. I don’t want California to end up in the same place.”

The Moscow-born Google co-founder made that comparison to The New York Times earlier this year, framing the wealth tax as a step toward the Soviet-style system his family escaped.

Brin’s personal history lends particular weight to his opposition. His family left the Soviet Union when he was six years old, seeking economic opportunity and freedom from government overreach. That biographical detail has featured prominently in opposition messaging, though supporters of the tax dismiss the comparison as inflammatory and historically inaccurate, noting that a one-time 5% levy bears little resemblance to Soviet economic policies.

The tax could trigger a billionaire exodus from California — some wealthy residents have already fled the state to avoid the deduction, taking businesses with them. But the proposition’s authors deliberately designed a trap: the tax applies retroactively to anyone residing in California at the beginning of 2026.

This retroactive design element has sparked intense legal debate. Constitutional scholars have questioned whether such retrospective taxation would survive court challenges, though the measure’s authors maintain they’ve carefully structured it to withstand scrutiny. The strategy reflects lessons learned from previous wealth tax proposals in other jurisdictions, where advance warning gave wealthy residents ample time to relocate.

Emmanuel Saez, a University of California, Berkeley professor who helped author the proposition, explained the timing strategy.

“It’s too late to leave now. Because the ballot was announced in late November 2025, it left only one month for billionaires to leave. And we chose that design because we believe, based on the tax experts, that it’s basically impossible to sever residency with California within one month.”

Saez, a leading economist whose research on income inequality has influenced progressive policy debates nationwide, has become the intellectual architect behind California’s wealth tax movement. His work documenting the growing concentration of wealth among the ultra-rich has provided the empirical foundation for arguments that traditional taxation mechanisms have failed to address extreme inequality.

Term-limited Governor Gavin Newsom, widely expected to launch a 2028 presidential campaign, has publicly promised to vote no on Proposition 40. Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra — both running to succeed Newsom as governor — have also signaled opposition to the measure.

Newsom’s opposition is particularly significant given his national profile among Democratic voters and progressive donors. His stance reflects the delicate balance California Democrats must strike between their party’s increasingly populist rhetoric on wealth inequality and the practical reality that Silicon Valley billionaires fund much of the state’s Democratic political infrastructure and provide tens of thousands of high-paying jobs.

The fight over Proposition 40 has become a proxy battle for California’s economic future, with billionaires warning the tax could drive the state’s most successful entrepreneurs to Nevada, Texas, and Florida — states with no income tax and no wealth tax proposals on the horizon.

Beyond its immediate fiscal implications, the measure has taken on symbolic importance as a test case for whether wealth taxes can work in the American context, with national implications for similar proposals that progressive activists hope to advance in other high-tax states.

What started as high school student demonstrations demanding better school conditions exploded into full-scale riots across France’s major cities. Protesters set fire to rubbish bins, hurled projectiles at police, and clashed with law enforcement responding with batons and tear gas. The scale and intensity of the violence has raised questions about the underlying tensions within France’s public education system and the broader frustrations affecting French youth.

The violent protests come just hours before President Emmanuel Macron’s government is set to unveil its 2027 budget — a spending plan that reportedly contains significant cuts to public services. The timing has amplified concerns among educators and students that the education sector may face further resource constraints, adding urgency to the demonstrations. France’s education system has been under mounting pressure for years, with teachers and administrators warning that chronic underfunding has created a crisis that affects millions of students nationwide.

“WHAT IS LEGITIMATE ARE THE DEMANDS, WHEN THEY RELATE TO SCHOOL LIFE. A CRIME OR AN OFFENSE IS NEVER LEGITIMATE BY DEFINITION IN A DEMOCRACY.”

The unrest began in the Ile-de-France region surrounding Paris but quickly spread to other cities in the following days. Students initially demanded solutions to teacher shortages and overcrowded classrooms — core grievances about France’s faltering education system. These long-standing issues have been documented repeatedly by education unions and parent organizations, who argue that years of neglect have left schools struggling to provide adequate instruction and safe learning environments.

But Tuesday’s protests escalated far beyond peaceful demonstrations. Between 200,000 and 300,000 protesters — students, teachers, and public-sector workers — took to the streets demanding more resources and solutions to loss of purchasing power, according to Le Monde. Protesters blockaded school entrances before the violence began. The broad coalition of demonstrators reflects growing discontent not only within the education sector but across France’s public service workforce, where employees have increasingly voiced concerns about wages that fail to keep pace with inflation.

At least 31 protesters were injured during the clashes. The injuries underscore the severity of confrontations between demonstrators and security forces deployed to restore order in affected areas.

Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez told BFMTV on Tuesday night that at least 440 detentions took place across France — and emphasized his office doesn’t yet have the full count. The unprecedented number of arrests, particularly involving minors, has sparked debate about how French authorities balance maintaining public order with protecting the rights of young demonstrators.

“I’m told that two-thirds of these [detentions] led to individuals being taken into police custody,” Nuñez said. “These arrests were primarily for property damage and attacks on internal security forces, in other words, violence against public officials.”

Nuñez defended French law enforcement, stating officers responded to the riots in an “extremely proportionate manner.” His assertion comes amid scrutiny of police tactics during large-scale demonstrations, an issue that has repeatedly surfaced during previous waves of unrest in France.

Education Minister Édouard Geffray condemned the violence Wednesday morning and called on protesters to stop and express demands through democratic channels instead. His appeal reflects the government’s effort to de-escalate tensions while maintaining that France’s institutional framework provides legitimate avenues for addressing grievances.

“The right to demonstrate is a fundamental freedom. Democratic institutions must be respected. Violence is unacceptable,” Geffray said, stressing, “Honestly, this has to stop.”

Geffray accused the far-left political movement La France Insoumise of “co-opting” and manipulating the student protests. The allegation highlights concerns within the government that political organizations are exploiting genuine student grievances for broader political purposes, potentially transforming educational issues into wider challenges to government authority.

The Minister acknowledged some student demands are legitimate — particularly the need for substitute teachers to replace absent ones. Other issues like facilities and cafeteria services must be addressed “within an organized local framework,” he said. Geffray’s acknowledgment represents a partial concession that the education system faces real problems requiring attention, even as he draws firm boundaries around acceptable methods of protest.

“A crime or an offense is never legitimate by definition in a democracy. We live in a state governed by the rule of law,” Geffray said. “What is legitimate are the demands, when they relate in this case to school life.”

French high school student unions are calling for another round of protests on Thursday, October 1. The planned demonstrations suggest that Tuesday’s unrest may be the beginning of a sustained campaign rather than an isolated incident, raising the prospect of prolonged confrontation between student movements and government authorities over the future of France’s public education system.

Majority of French Think Country Experiencing ‘Great Replacement’ by Non-European Migrantshttps://t.co/G255Jm1W3o

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) April 21, 2026

Foreign Born Population of France Soars, Highest-Ever Growth https://t.co/fd99zs5mRG

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) October 16, 2025

The Treasury Department is sending checks to over 950,000 Americans across 30 states, each accompanied by a letter personally signed by President Donald Trump.

The refunds stem from what the administration characterizes as excessive user fees collected from consumers who purchased health insurance through the federal marketplace. These fees, assessed as a percentage of monthly premiums, were designed to fund the operation and maintenance of HealthCare.gov and related administrative costs. The Trump administration contends that the fee structure during the Biden years resulted in collections that far exceeded the actual operational needs of the exchange platform.

“For years, the Biden administration overcharged you to fund the operation of HealthCare.gov. That money belongs to hard-working Americans, not the Government, and now I’m returning it to you!”

The letter accompanying each check frames the refund as a correction of what Trump describes as government overreach and mismanagement. By personally signing each letter, the president appears to be using the refund initiative as both a policy correction and a direct communication with voters affected by healthcare costs—a constituency that has consistently ranked healthcare affordability among their top concerns.

Trump originally announced the refund initiative in a video posted by the White House during the Republican midterm convention on Sept. 10.

President Donald J. Trump announces $500 rebate checks to nearly 1 million hardworking Americans who were wrongly overcharged through Obamacare.

“Our Administration is doing the right thing and giving the money back to the people who were wrongly ripped off.” pic.twitter.com/XWA1wlzRH8

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 10, 2026

The timing of the announcement, coinciding with the Republican convention and coming weeks before the midterm elections, underscores the political dimension of the refund program. The checks are arriving in mailboxes during a critical campaign period when control of Congress hangs in the balance and healthcare policy remains a pivotal electoral issue.

The refunds are separate from the $5,000 checks Trump has pledged to give every American adult if Republicans win in the midterms.

That larger promise represents a conditional commitment tied directly to electoral outcomes, while the $500 ObamaCare refunds are being distributed regardless of the midterm results. The distinction is significant: one is presented as restitution for past overcharges, while the other is framed as a future benefit contingent on maintaining Republican control.

Trump said his administration discovered that under Biden, American households buying health insurance through the ObamaCare exchange and HealthCare.gov were massively overcharged.

The discovery allegedly came through an internal audit of the federal marketplace’s fee structure and revenue collection. According to the administration’s characterization, the review revealed a substantial gap between the fees collected and the actual costs of operating the exchange infrastructure, resulting in what they describe as an unintended—or perhaps poorly managed—surplus extracted from consumers already struggling with rising healthcare costs.

“They were forced to pay excessive fees totaling over 500 million dollars,” Trump said.

“Our administration is doing the right thing and giving the money back to the people who were wrongly ripped off.”

The $500 million total represents the aggregate overcharge amount that the administration claims was improperly collected. With checks of $500 going to approximately 950,000 recipients, the math suggests that some portion of the total may be allocated to administrative costs or that not all overcharged individuals have been identified or are receiving refunds at this time. The decision to distribute uniform $500 checks, rather than amounts precisely calculated for each individual’s specific overcharge, appears designed to simplify the refund process and create a consistent, memorable benefit amount.

Trump also endorsed the Republicans’ healthcare legislation — The Great Healthcare Plan — which he said will lower drug prices, reduce insurance premiums, and bolster industry transparency. The administration’s full healthcare agenda is detailed on WhiteHouse.gov.

The refund initiative is being positioned as the opening salvo in a broader healthcare reform agenda that seeks to fundamentally restructure how Americans access and pay for health insurance. By leading with direct payments to consumers, the administration is establishing a narrative of returning power—and money—to individuals rather than maintaining it within government programs or insurance company structures.

“We will stop all payments to big insurance and give the money directly to the people who will then be able to buy better healthcare at a much lower cost and keep the money, and keep the difference,” Trump said. “We’ll have maximum price transparency and require all prices to be posted in plain, beautiful, English.”

“We will get insurance companies to disclose their profits and how many claims they deny so we know the good ones from the bad,” Trump added. “But the relief begins with refunding everyone who was overcharged.”

The emphasis on transparency and disclosure requirements signals an approach that combines market-based reforms with new regulatory mandates aimed at empowering consumers with information. By positioning the $500 refunds as merely the beginning of relief efforts, the administration is using the checks as tangible evidence of its commitment to healthcare reform while building support for more sweeping changes that would reshape the insurance marketplace established under the Affordable Care Act.