The Dictatorship
Admitted students’ GPAs and test scores won’t show Trump what he thinks they’ll show
Most Americans, across the political spectrum and every demographic, embrace and hold dearly the idea of meritocracy. And the question of how we determine academic merit has been thrust into the forefront by President Donald Trump with his recent executive order requiring colleges to disclose data regarding applicant race, test scores and grade-point averages to the federal government. The order states, “Greater transparency is essential to exposing unlawful practices and ultimately ridding society of shameful, dangerous racial hierarchies.” The reception to the executive order has been mixedwith some claiming it will help curtail racial discrimination in college admissions and others saying it may increase it.
The question “Who deserves this opportunity?” is and always will be subjective.
The question we ought to be asking, though, is would data regarding race, test scores and grade-point averages tell us everything we need to know about applicants and their academic qualifications? The debate around merit isn’t about merit per se but about how merit should be judged. Because the question “Who deserves this opportunity?” is and always will be subjective.
Americans should accept that the hard truth is that there is no objective standard to determine merit regarding academic qualifications. You may be thinking that grade-point averages and standardized test scores are objective metrics, but you would be correct only to a degree. Because a second hard truth is that GPA and test scores exist within the context of an American K-12 education system that is profoundly unequal between and within the states.
In 1973, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguezthe U.S. Supreme Court was asked, “Did Texas’ public education finance system violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by failing to distribute funding equally among its school districts?” The court answered, “No, because there is no constitutional right to an equal education, and the funding scheme does not discriminate against poor people as a group.” It’s fine, the court ruled, for students in rich school districts to have access to the sort of curriculum to prepare them for highly selective universities while students in poor districts are left out because of where they live.
The next year, in Milliken v. Bradleythe same court severely restricted school busing when it ruled that that segregation by law was unconstitutional but segregation by custom was legal. Taken together, the decisions in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez and Milliken v. Bradley have helped maintain a K-12 school system that is highly segregated by race and economic class in the United States. This is the reality of elementary and secondary education and, thus, must be the context for all debates about what college admissions officers should be looking for when staring at each year’s pile of applications.
Let’s say a student from a poor district in Mississippi is competing for a spot at a highly selective university against a student from a wealthy district in Connecticut. The students have similar grades, but the student from Connecticut, who had access to a standardized test preparation course, has better test scores and was able to participate in extracurricular activities unavailable to the Mississippi student.
Which applicant deserves and would benefit more from admission to the highly selective university in question? The student who had access to everything they needed to make their application appealing to the Ivy Leagues or the student who did the best with what was available to them?
My omission of race from that hypothetical is intentional. While there is a correlation between race and economic class in the United States, that obviously doesn’t mean all members of a race are poor or wealthy. This hypothetical focuses on a frustrating reality of K-12 education in America: that a student’s district and state can determine the quality of education, test preparation and extracurricular activities they can access.
It’s necessary for us to debate how we should judge academic credentials.
And any system that forces universities to treat GPAs and test scores as if they’re the only things that matter will have an unfair and devastating impact on students from poor school systems.
It’s necessary for us to debate what constitutes academic merit and to debate how we should judge academic credentials. As the outcome of those debates will determine who is (and who isn’t) granted access to the transformative curriculum that higher education provides, the stakes couldn’t be higher. But such debates demand our candor and our caution. We must be wary of reducing academic merit to the best credentials money can buy and then calling it objective.
Our profoundly unequal K-12 system shouldn’t force us to follow it with a profoundly unequal system of higher ed.
Nicholas Mitchell
Nicholas Mitchell is an assistant professor of curriculum studies at the University of Kansas. He is a curriculum theorist whose scholarship focuses on the intersection of education theory, policy and practice. He is the author of “On Bigotry” by Bloomsbury Publishing.
The Dictatorship
‘I don’t care about that’: Trump moves the goal posts on Iran’s uranium stockpile
More than a month into the war in Iran, there’s still great uncertainty about why the United States launched this military offensive in the first place. There’s reason to believe, however, that the conflict has something to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
At an unrelated White House event on Tuesday, for example, Donald Trump said“I had one goal: They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”
It was a curious comment, in part because by the president’s own assessmentIran didn’t have a nuclear weapon before he decided to launch the war, and in part because Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week presented the administration’s four major objectives in the conflict, none of which had anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
As for whether Trump’s newly manufactured “goal” has actually been “attained,” The New York Times reported“Unless something changes over the next two weeks — the target Mr. Trump set to begin withdrawing from the conflict — he will have left the Iranians with 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium, enough for 10 to a dozen bombs. The country will retain control over an even larger inventory of medium-enriched uranium that, with further enrichment, could be turned into bomb fuel, if the Iranians can rebuild that capacity after a month of steady bombing.”
The American president has acknowledged that these details are true, though he apparently no longer cares. Ahead of an Oval Office address to the nation about the war in Iran, the Republican spoke to Reuters about his perspective:
Of the enriched uranium, Trump said: ‘That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that.’
‘We’ll always be watching it by satellite,’ he added. He said Iran was ‘incapable’ of developing a weapon now.
The president’s comments definitely have a practical element: It’s been an open question for weeks as to whether Trump intends to try to seize Iran’s uranium stockpile, which would require ground troops and be profoundly dangerous for U.S. military service members.
If Trump told Reuters the truth and is prepared to let Iran keep the uranium it already has because he no longer “cares about that,” it would drastically reduce the likelihood of a ground invasion — one that would almost certainly cost lives.
But there’s another element to this worth keeping in mind as the process moves forward: Ever since the Obama administration struck the original nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015, Trump has insisted that it was wrong to allow the country to hold onto nuclear materials that might someday be used in a nuclear weapon.
A decade later, he’s suddenly indifferent to Iran’s uranium stockpile — which has only grown larger since Trump abandoned the Obama-era policy.
Trump’s goalposts, in other words, are on the move.
Indeed, if the American president’s comments reflect his true perspective (and with this guy, one never really knows), we’re due for a serious public conversation about the motives and objectives for the war. Because as things stand, before the war, Iran had a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country had a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz was open.
And now, Trump’s apparent vision for a successful offensive will include Iran with a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country still holding a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz will be open.
Mission accomplished, I guess?
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Mike Johnson caves to the Senate, paving the way for likely DHS shutdown deal
Just days after labeling the Senate deal to end the record-breaking shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security a “crap sandwich,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., now appears ready to swallow it whole.
Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Wednesday they will move forward with the two-track approach senators unanimously backed last Friday. They will pass a bill to fund most of DHS — with the exception of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and parts of Customs and Border Patrol — and then look to approve money for ICE and CBP in a separate reconciliation package.
“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” Johnson and Thune said in a joint statement.

The announcement amounts to a stunning reversal for Johnson, who was facing pressure from conservatives to oppose the Senate deal. Their objections centered on the lack of money for ICE, as well as the Senate’s failure to include new voter ID restrictions, championed by President Donald Trump, with the so-called SAVE America Act.
Instead, Johnson on Friday forced a House vote on an alternative measure to fund all of DHS for eight weeks. While it passed almost entirely along party linesthe stopgap measure stood no chance in the Senate, where Democrats have repeatedly rejected a similar proposal in recent weeks.
Lawmakers were back to square one.
But it turns out, all they needed was a little push from Trump.
Less than three hours before Johnson and Thune’s announcement, Trump urged Republicans — in a lengthy statement on Truth Social — to pass funding for ICE and border patrol through budget reconciliation. While that approach allows GOP lawmakers to bypass Democratic opposition, it requires near-unanimous GOP support.
Trump said he wants the legislation on his desk by June 1 — an ambitious timeline that dramatically increased pressure on Republicans.
“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them. I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st.”

With Johnson suddenly on board, lawmakers appear poised to end the DHS shutdown just as soon as the House can reconvene. It’s unclear exactly when that might happen. The House isn’t due back until April 14. But Johnson could always call lawmakers back sooner — or look to pass the Senate bill while both chambers are out on recess through a special process.
Because the House never technically sent its 60-day continuing resolution to the Senate, the House could just recede from its amendment of the Senate-passed bill and immediately send the legislation to the president.
Either way, barring another sudden shift from Trump or House leadership, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history may soon be over — and Democrats are already taking a victory lap.
“Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “We were clear from the start: fund critical security, protect Americans, and no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.”
“We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer added.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
The Dictatorship
Former White House official: Trump’s Supreme Court attendance could be ‘perceived as intimidation’
President Donald Trump became the first sitting American president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning when he sat in the audience to hear his administration argue to limit birthright citizenship guarantees for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary U.S. residents.
Before arguments began, Trump entered the courtroom wearing his usual red tie and sat in the front row of the public seating area. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Attorney General Pam Bondi were also in the room.
None of the justices acknowledged Trump’s presence while he was in the courtroom.
As the justices began to question U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who was arguing on behalf of the administration, Trump remained focused and wore a blank expression.
After Sauer finished his arguments, Trump remained in the courtroom for a few minutes. He got up and quietly left, flanked by Secret Service agents, shortly after Cecillia Wang began her arguments for the ACLU.

Trump’s presence at the court is significant. A sitting president of the United States has never attended oral arguments at the high court before, which is widely considered a sign of respect for the balance of power between the federal government and the judiciary.
Two senior White House officials who requested anonymity to speak about the president’s internal strategy told MS NOW that Trump wanted to listen to the oral argument because “it’s an important case.” The outcome of the case will have sweeping legal implications for Trump’s sprawling immigration enforcement agenda.
“Behind closed doors there’s a realization of the tremendous legal wall this is to climb,” a former White House official familiar with Trump’s thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity told MS NOW.
“I’m not sure of the calculation from him to go today. It will be perceived as intimidation, and some justices won’t like that,” the former official said.
Trump has shown scorn for the justices for their ruling on his aggressive tariff policy. Earlier this year, Trump said the justices who ruled against the policy were an “an embarrassment to their families.” The president has railed against the justices, including the ones he appointed in his first term, for striking down his sprawling trade agenda.
Trump has pivoted between slamming the justices on social media for the February tariff ruling and calling on them to uphold his birthright citizenship order.
Domicile, the legal term for the place where an individual maintains a permanent home, was at the heart of Sauer’s argument Wednesday. Sauer argued that parents of children born in the U.S. must be domiciled in the United States and demonstrate allegiance to the country in order for their children to be granted citizenship.
Trump left the court after his administration’s argument faced pushback from the court’s key conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, as well as the rest of the justices on the bench.
As Trump’s motorcade rolled back to the White House, droves of tourists watched and responded with positive and negative gestures. National Guard members were in the crowds, as well.
The case, Trump v. Barbara, centers on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to confer citizenship to almost all individuals born on U.S. soil: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Shortly after returning to the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order seeking to end that guarantee. The justices will weigh whether the executive order complies with the federal statute that codified that clause.
Trump did not stay to hear more than the first few minutes of the dissenting arguments. But after returning to the White House, he posted a response on his Truth Social platform. “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship!”
Sydney Carruth is a breaking news reporter covering national politics and policy for MS NOW. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at SydneyCarruth.46 or follow her work on X and Bluesky.
Jake Traylor is a White House correspondent for MS NOW.
Fallon Gallagher is a legal affairs reporter for MS NOW.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics12 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’



