The National Education Association, America’s largest teachers' union, held its annual convention earlier this month. The union’s resolutions — leaked to me by a union member — had nothing to do with improving education. Instead, the NEA declared war on the Trump administration.One resolution committed the union to “defend birthright citizenship,” and another one to “support students’ right to organize against ICE raids and deportations.” Yet another declared support for “the mass democratic movement against Trump’s authoritarianism” and “the Los Angeles-based movement to defeat Trump’s attempt to use federal forces against the state of California and other states and communities.”Forcing taxpayers to fund education for illegal immigrants undermines the rule of law and creates perverse incentives for further illegal immigration.These resolutions confirm yet again that teachers’ unions are more invested in political activism than in prioritizing education.In fact, NEA President Becky Pringle is an at-large member of the Democratic National Committee. Such actions expose teachers’ unions for what they really are: little more than an arm of the Democratic Party, pushing a radical agenda that puts taxpayers on the hook for funding the K-12 education of illegal immigrants.With a conservative-leaning Supreme Court and growing public support for immigration enforcement, the time has come to revisit Plyler v. Doe, the 1982 ruling that forced states to provide free public education to children regardless of their immigration status. Reversing that decision would restore basic fairness for taxpayers and bring education policy back in line with the will of the American people.The post-Plyler disasterThe court decided Plyler v. Doe on a narrow 5-4 vote, reflecting deep division even at the time. Today’s court, reshaped by President Trump’s appointments, has a stronger constitutional foundation to strike it down. The legal terrain has shifted. The original ruling was shaky then and looks even weaker now.Legally, the case for overturning Plyler is strong. Conservative scholars argue that the 43-year-old ruling overstepped federal authority by compelling states to allocate resources for individuals who are not lawfully present. States have a sovereign right to prioritize their citizens and legal residents when allocating finite resources.Meanwhile, conservative legal scholars argue that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment — used to justify the decision — does not require states to educate those in the country unlawfully. That clause was written to protect citizens and lawful residents, not to extend taxpayer-funded benefits to those who violate immigration law.RELATED: School censorship backfires in costly free speech beatdown z_wei via iStock/Getty Images Forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for illegal immigrants’ education undermines the rule of law and encourages more unlawful entry. Public sentiment aligns with this view. A June CBS News/YouGov survey found that 54% of Americans support President Trump’s deportation efforts, a stance that helped propel him back to the White House last year. A June InsiderAdvantage poll found that 59% of Americans — including 89% of Republicans — support Trump’s decision “to deploy National Guard and federal military in downtown Los Angeles.”A 2013 Phi Delta Kappa International/Gallup poll revealed that 55% of Americans oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund education for children of illegal immigrants, with a staggering 81% of Republican voters in agreement. (Perhaps that’s why Gallup hasn’t asked the question again.)Taxpayers bear the cost, but teachers’ unions reap the rewards.Public school funding is tied to enrollment. More students — regardless of legal status — mean more money for school districts. Illegal immigrant students often qualify as English language learners, which brings in even more per-pupil funding through federal and state grants.The surge in English learners creates a demand for specialized teachers. Hiring more staff means more union members — and more dues. The unions grow stronger and richer with every new student who requires extra services.So when teachers’ unions protest immigration enforcement or attack Trump administration policies, they aren’t defending children. They’re protecting their bottom line. It’s all about the cash, not compassion. They’ve prioritized financial and political power over the interests of American citizens and legal residents, and they expect you to keep paying for it.Two ways forwardTwo strategies could pave the way to overturn Plyler v. Doe.First, states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee are expanding school choice programs that exclude illegal immigrants from taxpayer-funded benefits such as private school scholarships and education savings accounts. These programs give parents greater control over their children’s education, but unions have launched aggressive campaigns to block them.If unions sue to stop these programs on the grounds that they violate Plyler, they’ll likely lose. The ruling required states to provide free public education to illegal immigrants. It said nothing about private scholarships or alternative funding streams.That legal distinction matters. The court’s conservative majority could uphold these state programs and clarify that Plyler doesn’t apply outside the public school system. Such a decision wouldn’t just protect school choice — it could also erode the Plyler precedent and clear a path to overturn it entirely.That would return power to the states and allow elected leaders — not unelected judges — to decide how taxpayer dollars are spent.The second way involves red-state lawmakers taking direct aim at Plyler.Republican legislators in states like Tennessee have introduced bills to block taxpayer funding for the K-12 education of illegal immigrants. Tennessee recently put its bill on hold while seeking federal guidance on whether the move would jeopardize broader education funding.If teachers’ unions sue to stop these laws, they risk a high-stakes loss.A legal defeat could weaken Plyler and give states new authority to draw clear lines around who qualifies for taxpayer-funded education. One ruling could reshape national policy — and force a long-overdue debate about who pays, who benefits, and who decides.The National Education Association’s unhinged resolutions reflect a desperate push to preserve a broken status quo. Its opposition to border enforcement isn’t about students — it’s about protecting funding, growing membership, and consolidating power. The Supreme Court should revisit Plyler v. Doe and reaffirm a basic principle: Taxpayer resources must serve those who respect the rule of law.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revealed in late March that it was downsizing its workforce from 82,000 to 62,000 employees as part of a broader overhaul intended to maximize efficiency, save taxpayers money, and help make America healthy again.The agency sent notices of reduction in force to 10,000 employees. Another 10,000 workers apparently left voluntarily, accepting early retirement and buyout offers.The threat of a proper housecleaning enraged Democrats and, of course, pink-slip recipients, who filed legal challenges. Democrat-appointed U.S. district judges proved more than willing to hold up the terminations, prompting the government to appeal and the Supreme Court to weigh in.'Despite spending $1.9 trillion in annual costs, Americans are getting sicker every year.'Taking full advantage of the path cleared by the high court, HHS finalized layoffs for thousands of employees on Monday.An HHS spokesperson told Blaze News that "all employees who were originally notified, who aren't covered under the N.Y. v. Kennedy case, and those who haven't had their notice rescinded have been terminated."How it startedHealth and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the layoffs in late March, noting that the restructuring would:save taxpayers $1.8 billion per year through the reduction in the workforce of about 10,000 full-time workers; streamline the functions of the department by consolidating 28 divisions into 15 divisions, reducing regional offices from 10 to five, and centralizing core functions;"implement the new HHS priority of ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins"; andmake Americans' experience with the HHS more responsive and efficient.The health secretary noted on X that while the moment was difficult, "the reality is clear: what we've been doing isn't working.""Despite spending $1.9 trillion in annual costs, Americans are getting sicker every year. In the past four years alone, the agency’s budget has grown by 38% — yet outcomes continue to decline," wrote Kennedy. "We must shift course."Straight out of the gate, senior officials at the National Institutes of Health including Christine Grady, the wife of former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, got the boot along with Fauci allies Clifford Lane, deputy director for clinical research and special projects at NIAID, and Emily Erbelding, director of the NIAID division of microbiology and infectious diseases.Establishmentarians clutched their pearls over these and other firings at HHS.Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, bemoaned the layoffs, telling Nature, "This will go down as one of the darkest days in modern scientific history in my 50 years in the business."It's a bloodbath," one U.S. Food and Drug Administration employee told CNN.Former FDA Commissioner Robert Califf took his doomsaying onto LinkedIn, noting, "The FDA as we've known it is finished, with most of the leaders with institutional knowledge and a deep understanding of product development and safety no longer employed. I believe that history will see this a huge mistake."RELATED: How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty ImagesTwo major legal actions were launched in recent weeks with the apparent aim of writing the terminations off as unlawful and undermining the MAGA agenda: a class-action lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia on behalf of ex-HHS employees and a lawsuit filed on May 5 by Democratic attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia, seeking to block the RIF.Both cases were assigned Democrat-appointed judges, the class-action lawsuit to an Obama judge and the blue states' lawsuit to U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose, a Biden appointee.'Thank you for your service to the American people.'As is the apparent custom of Democrat-appointed federal judges, Judge DuBose obliged the plaintiffs, blocking the Trump administration from finalizing the layoffs and requiring HHS to file a status report by July 11.DuBose suggested that they had "sufficiently shown irreparable harm" and that the "Executive Branch does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress."How it's goingLast week, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed federal agencies to continue with their mass layoffs, staying a Clinton judge's order that had blocked the administration from proceeding without congressional approval.On Monday, the Supreme Court sent another message on theme, letting the Trump administration execute mass layoffs at the Department of Education.RELATED: Career feds act like they’re the ones running the country Photo by Elijah Nouvelage/Getty ImagesCiting the high court's July 8 decision, HHS informed thousands of employees on Monday that their time at the agency was over as of close of business.“You are hereby notified that you are officially separated from HHS at the close of business on July 14, 2025," said a copy of the notice obtained by the Washington Post. "Thank you for your service to the American people."Not all of the intended 10,000 ousters are taking place this week.Some jobs are temporarily protected owing to DuBose's ruling in New York v. Kennedy, which reportedly shields employees at the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and Tuberculosis Prevention; the National Center for Environmental Health; the Division of Reproductive Health; the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; the Office on Smoking and Health; the National Center for Birth Defects and Development Disabilities; the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products; the Office of Head Start; and the Division of Data and Technical Analysis.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Vice President JD Vance had to cast another tiebreaking vote in the Senate to advance President Donald Trump's agenda.The Senate narrowly advanced the DOGE cuts package in a 51-50 vote late Tuesday night. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky voted to block the DOGE cuts, prompting Vance to cast his tiebreaking vote. Congress is inching closer to codifying the first DOGE cuts via the White House's rescissions package, but the $9.4 billion price tag is just a drop in the bucket.Although some Republicans have gone against the grain, the White House is keen on codifying DOGE cuts.The rescissions package makes $1.1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, including PBS and NPR, which have functionally worked as left-wing organizations subsidized by American taxpayers. The package also cuts $8.3 billion to various leftist projects disguised as foreign aid programs such as the U.S. Agency for International Development.RELATED: Vance casts tiebreaking vote after Republicans betray Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Although the DOGE cuts were able to clear a procedural hurdle, senators will now proceed with their vote-a-rama of amendments before scheduling the final floor vote in time for the Friday deadline.Several House Republicans told Blaze News they were concerned that the Senate would water down the cuts through the amendment process, with one describing the cuts package as "low-hanging fruit." The DOGE cuts previously passed the House in a narrow 214-212 vote back in June. As in the Senate, a handful of Republicans voted alongside Democrats to block the DOGE cuts, including Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York, and Mike Turner of Ohio.RELATED: Republican senator makes a stunning admission: 'I can't be somebody that I'm not' Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images Although some Republicans have gone against the grain, the White House is keen on codifying DOGE cuts. Director Russ Vought of the Office of Management and Budget previously told Blaze News that he would be open to drafting more rescissions packages in the future."We're going to go through the process with the Hill to see if this first one passes, and see where we are," Vought said. "... I think it will be successful, and it will certainly inform our strategy going forward."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Alice, Neal Smith, Michael Bruce and Dennis Dunaway have reunited with their longtime producer, Bob Ezrin, with a posthumous appearance by guitarist Glen Buxton. The post Original Alice Cooper Band Shares Rocking Track From Reunion Studio Album appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

They are united around a shared desire to see the destruction of the West.

An overdue exposé of the influencer syndrome.

House and Senate Republicans have already introduced much of the legislation needed to bring the ayatollah to his knees.

With the passage of the ‘big, beautiful bill,’ the interests of patients prevailed over one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.

Humpty Had a Great Fall: Homeland Security Trolls NYT and Former Biden Official on Immigration

They've Got Him THIS Time! Vile Lefties 'Pounce' on Trump's Hand and Ankles to Show Us Who They Are