Senate committee rejects immigration rules for Oklahoma schools
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – Lawmakers at the State Capitol voted Wednesday to reject controversial rules proposed by State Superintendent Ryan Walters.
The bipartisan Senate Administrative Rules Committee voted 6-1 on a resolution that would remove two key rules: Requiring public schools to ask families for proof of U.S. Citizenship during school enrollment, and requiring teachers to take a U.S. Naturalization test.
RELATED: OSDE passes rule to require citizenship status of families
Senator Micheal Bergstrom (R-Adair) was the co-chair of the committee who submitted the resolution.
'As Chairman Kendricks and I looked at it, we decided there probably was not legislative authority for those rules,' said Bergstrom.
Governor Kevin Stitt has spoken out against schools asking for proof of citizenship. A House committee disapproved of the rule last month.
Wednesday's meeting was expected to be a long discussion with three amendments filed. Two of the amendments, filed by Senator Michael Brooks Jimenez (D-Oklahoma City), were pulled. Another amendment, filed by Senator Shane Jett (R-Shawnee), was not heard because the meeting had a quorum before Jett arrived, and he did not get to vote.
'Frustrated would be a very, very light word for how I actually felt about it,' said Jett.
RELATED: Teachers to be required to take U.S. Naturalization test
His amendment would have allowed the citizenship checks in schools to remain in place.
'I have actually filed this amendment to be heard on the floor. So everyone is going to get an opportunity to take a stance that they could have,' said Jett.
The resolution will head to the Senate floor for a full vote. Bergstrom expects that will happen soon.
If approved by the full Senate, the rules will go back to the House for approval.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KFOR.com Oklahoma City.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
28 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Biden's doctor failed to properly assess fitness for office, Obama's doctor says
The rare criticism of one White House doctor by another comes as Republicans have increased scrutiny of O'Connor and other former White House aides. House Republicans subpoenaed O'Connor on Thursday, a day after President Donald Trump ordered White House attorneys to determine whether Biden's inner circle tried to conceal his alleged cognitive decline. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Kuhlman also said the 2024 report merely assessed Biden's health when it should have considered his fitness to serve in one of the most taxing jobs on the planet. Advertisement 'It shouldn't be just health, it should be fitness,' Kuhlman said. 'Fitness is: Do you have that robust mind, body, spirit that you can do this physically, mentally, emotionally demanding job?' O'Connor did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Biden's recent disclosure of metastatic prostate cancer and reporting about his alleged physical and cognitive decline have fueled suspicion - among Democrats as well as Republicans - that the true state of Biden's health toward the end of his term was known only by O'Connor and a few others closest to Biden. Advertisement Journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson sketched a picture of a well-meaning but weakened president in a book they released last month. The book, which draws on interviews with dozens of Democratic insiders after the 2024 election, paints a portrait of a man suffering at times from forgetfulness, incoherence and fatigue. It also says that O'Connor was reluctant to give Biden a cognitive test, though he was assessed by a neurologist for conditions such as Parkinson's disease. Biden gave a sarcastic response last week. 'You can see that I'm mentally incompetent, and I can't walk, and I can beat the hell out of both of them,' he told reporters at a Memorial Day event, apparently referring to Tapper and Thompson. Biden's granddaughter Naomi Biden has called the book 'political fairy smut.' The book isn't the first time Biden's cognitive state has been questioned. Special counsel Robert K. Hur said in February 2024 that Biden had 'limited precision and recall' - including not remembering when his vice-presidential term ended - after Hur conducted two days of interviews with Biden about his handling of classified documents. Kuhlman formerly worked alongside O'Connor in the White House medical unit, a nonpartisan post, and appointed him in 2009 to serve as then-Vice President Biden's personal doctor. Kuhlman was Obama's physician from 2009 to 2013. O'Connor examined Biden - and signed his name to the February 2024 medical report that said the president 'continues to be fit for duty' - four months before a disastrous campaign debate between Trump and Biden prompted Democrats to call for Biden to step down as the nominee. Advertisement Kuhlman, who left the medical unit in 2013, said he tries not to criticize those who have held similar positions. He called O'Connor 'a good doctor' who seemed to do his best to 'give trusted medical advice.' 'I didn't see that he's purposely hiding stuff, but I don't know that,' he said. 'Maybe the investigation will show it.' Kuhlman wrote a 2024 book about his experiences in the White House Medical Unit in which he argued for cognitive testing for older candidates and presidents. O'Connor's six-page report included Biden's lab results and an explanation of various conditions for which he was being treated. It also listed 10 medical specialists, including a neurologist, who also examined Biden. 'President Biden is a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency,' O'Connor wrote. White House doctors have long been under intense public scrutiny, balancing the deeply personal doctor-patient relationship with a responsibility to tell the American public whether the president is fit to serve - and if not, why. Some have gone to great lengths to hide when the president is severely ill - as Grover Cleveland's doctors did when they turned a yacht into an operating room to secretly remove a tumor from the president's mouth in 1893. Presidential physicians also are expected to communicate to Americans personal information about the very person who could fire them. 'Whether it's family who are worried for them or people who work for them and don't want to lose their jobs, no one has a vested interest in hearing the truth about the president's health - except for the American people and the world,' said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia. Advertisement It has not always been clear what role the White House doctors see for themselves. Even as they are often close confidants of the president, they must consider the good of the country in their recommendations about what tests and treatments to pursue. O'Connor repeatedly refused last year to administer a cognitive exam to Biden even as aides privately expressed concerns about his mental fitness, according to Tapper and Thompson's book. Trump's former doctors, including Ronny Jackson and Sean Conley, have at times sounded more like cheerleaders for the president than sober judges of his health. His current doctor, Sean Barbabella, mentioned Trump's 'frequent victories in golf events' in the first medical report of his second term. Jackson suggested to the media in 2018 that Trump had 'incredibly good genes' and joked that he might live to 200 years old if his eating habits were more healthful. Jackson, now a Republican congressman from Texas, was demoted by the U.S. Navy after an inspector general report shed light on multiple misdeeds involving alcohol and harassment while he served in the White House medical unit. Conley, who succeeded Jackson, repeatedly downplayed the severity of Trump's symptoms when he was hospitalized with covid-19 in the fall of 2020. Past presidents who didn't want the public to know the truth about their poor health have orchestrated elaborate cover-ups. After Woodrow Wilson suffered a major stroke in 1919, leaving him with a paralyzed left side, his doctor conspired with Wilson's wife to keep his condition hidden from his own Cabinet. Advertisement Cleveland insisted the operation to remove his tumor be secretly performed on a friend's yacht, under the guise that he was on a fishing trip near his summer home on Long Island. The administration denied an initial report about the surgery, and the truth wasn't widely accepted until after Cleveland's death many years later, when one of his doctors publicly confessed. On the other hand, Dwight D. Eisenhower reportedly ordered his press secretary to 'tell them everything' after suffering a heart attack in 1955. His surgeons regularly briefed the public after his heart surgery. But medical transparency is only as strong as the president wants it to be. Like regular Americans, the president is protected by medical privacy laws, so disclosing any health information is ultimately up to him. An additional challenge, former White House doctors and presidential historians say, is that there is no official requirement for how often a president should undergo an exam, what the exam should include and which of the results should be made public. 'There's nothing codified about what to do,' said Kuhlman, who also served on the White House medical unit under George W. Bush. White House doctors traditionally conduct an annual physical exam on the president and release a memo of varying length that includes vital signs, a summary of the physical examination and the results of blood tests. These memos generally conclude with some kind of pronouncement from the doctor that the president is fit to execute the duties of the presidency. Trump's and Biden's doctors have largely followed that pattern, although the reports on Biden's health have been significantly longer and more detailed than the reports on Trump. Advertisement Kuhlman and Lawrence Mohr, who served as physician to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said they were never asked by any president to withhold medical information in their reports. Mohr said he recalls that there was 'never any question' about being candid about the president's health. 'You never lie; never, never say anything that's not true,' Mohr said. 'You put out a clear press release about what's going on, what to expect and you get it out there. If you don't do that, you end up with all sorts of speculation.' Reagan was 77 when he left office and five years later announced he had Alzheimer's disease. He faced similar questions about his fitness to serve. Mohr recollected administering the Mini-Mental State Examination - a test used to assess cognitive function - to the 40th president. Trump's doctors have given him a different cognitive test, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. But cognitive tests are not standard practice. Neither George W. Bush nor Obama took one, Kuhlman said. But they were much younger while in office than Biden. 'I was fortunate to have 50-year-old patients instead of 80-year-old ones,' Kuhlman said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Idaho senators should protect school choice in ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is now moving through the U.S. Senate, and conservative Christians are thrilled with many of the provisions that have been included so far. Although we don't yet know how the Senate version of the bill will shake out, it's worth noting that the version passed by the House late last month fulfills many of the pro-family policies made by the Trump administration. These include an expansion to the child tax credit for working families, tax benefits for adoptive parents and making permanent the Trump personal income and business tax cuts that fueled the above-average economic growth America experienced before the pandemic derailed international markets. However, one provision in particular that would improve educational access and outcomes for all students has flown under the radar so far. The provision would help more than one million students across the country access the educational support they need by creating special tax benefits for private donations to scholarship-granting organizations. It is modeled after the Educational Choice for Children Act, a federal proposal that has been introduced multiple times over the past several years and has earned the support of Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, as well as other conservative stalwarts like Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, and Sen. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina. Scholarship-granting organizations already exist in many states, providing scholarships directly to students for tuition, tutoring, special needs services, education technology and curriculum materials. The provision offers both a supplement and alternative for students in states like Idaho, which has already begun moving down the road to more universal school choice programs by offering a new $5,000 refundable tax credit paid directly to the private school and homeschool families. Some parents — particularly within the homeschooling community — have voiced concerns that new school choice initiatives, such as Idaho's refundable tax credit, might jeopardize their educational freedom. After all, government money usually comes with strings attached. When you take the government cheese, you have to step into the regulatory mousetrap. And even if those restrictions aren't imposed right away, the door remains open for future state and federal mandates. Importantly, the ECCA provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill addresses these concerns by making sure no government funds go to the organizations, schools, or families involved — thereby avoiding another opportunity for government regulation. Instead, the ECCA establishes tax incentives for private donations to scholarship-granting organizations, which then award scholarships directly to students. Because this is private money — not government dollars — families can freely choose the best educational options for their children without government interference. All of this explains why the ECCA is supported by homeschool freedom advocates, including the Home School Legal Defense Association. In fact, the ECCA model helps ensure that parents remain in control of their children's education, consistent with biblical principles like Ephesians 6:4, which commands fathers to bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Not only would the ECCA provision in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' help parents fulfill this biblical responsibility, but it would also expand educational opportunities for children currently stuck in failing public schools, no matter the state in which they live. Nationwide school choice which empowers parents while also protecting educational freedom is a high priority for Trump — and it should be just as high a priority for our legislative branch as they set education policy. With that in mind, we call on the U.S. Senate to keep the ECCA provision in whichever version of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' they adopt. Our children — and their families — deserve it. Blaine Conzatti is the president of Idaho Family Policy Center.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
3 ways Trump's policy bill hurts Tesla
Elon Musk has been feuding with President Trump over a bill the president is championing that, among other things, cuts incentives for electric vehicles and solar energy that benefit Musk's company Tesla. Trump said Musk's vocal opposition to Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' is based on its elimination of incentives for electric vehicles (EVs). 'Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here. … He had no problem with it,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that's billions and billions of dollars,' he added. While the bill may not be all bad for Musk – including preserving Trump's 2017 income tax cuts – it contains significant provisions that impact Musk's flagship company. It also rolls back green-tax incentives. Since he's stepped away of the Trump administration, the entrepreneur has been a vocal critic of the legislation, including lamenting that 'there is no change to tax incentives for oil & gas, just EV/solar.' While the House narrowly passed its version of the bill in late May, it is facing hurdles in the Senate, where it is so far losing some momentum. Here's a look at the provisions that may be particularly impactful for the company – as well as other electric vehicle and climate-friendly energy companies: One major way in which the 'big, beautiful bill' harms Tesla is by making its cars more expensive. The Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act lifted a cap allowing manufacturers that had already sold more than 200,000 electric vehicles to once again be eligible for the $7,500 consumer tax credit. It also extended eligibility for the credit through 2032 The bill effectively made the cars $7,500 cheaper for consumers. But, the credits are cut in the GOP's bill. Without that credit, Tesla and other EV makers may make fewer sales. One major hurdle facing the adoption of electric vehicles is that they are oftentimes more expensive than gas-powered cars. However, Musk has contended when he was supporting Trump that he does not need the tax credit. Tesla Energy sells both rooftop solar energy and grid scale solar power – both of which are hampered by the Republican bill. The legislation axes tax credits for rooftop solar after this year. It also eliminates tax credits for any grid scale project that begins construction more than 60 days after the bill is enacted. Projects also need to begin producing energy by the end of 2028 to become eligible. These utility scale cuts are controversial even within the GOP and could face changes in the Senate. The legislation would eliminate a Biden-era regulation that forces the electric vehicle market to shift toward EVs. While Tesla is already all-electric, doing so could still impact its bottom line, as the way the regulations are set up, automakers either have to make their vehicles greener or purchase credits from automakers like Tesla that already outperform the regulations. If the regulation is weakened, traditional car manufacturers may not have to buy as many credits from EV-makers like Tesla. However, it's not clear whether this provision will make it into what's ultimately passed because it will first need to be approved by the Senate parliamentarian, which sets the rules for what types of provisions are eligible in legislation passed through a procedure that requires just 50 votes. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
