Local, state educators cite uncertainty over continued federal support
Hassan charges Trump takes actions to weaken, dismantle DOE
U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H, said President Donald Trump can't eliminate the U.S. Dept. of Education without congressional approval, but has taken steps to weaken or undo federal education initiatives.
Local and state educators told U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan and Rep. Maggie Goodlander, both D-N.H., Monday that they face the most uncertainty ever over the future of federal Department of Education programs.
Josh Gagnon, director of University of New Hampshire TRIO Upward Bound, said his program will end on June 1 unless the U.S. Department of Education agrees to release federal money that Congress has approved.
Gagnon said many of the 2,500 students in his programs are first-generation Americans and these offerings give them a 'sense of belonging' before they attend two- or four-year college courses.
He met with a group of parents and students over the weekend.
'I couldn't give them an answer whether or not there will be a summer program,' Gagnon said during a roundtable at Manchester Community College (MCC).
Robert Thompson, Hampstead's superintendent of schools, said the district learns its federal allotment of grants by April every year.
'We still have not heard what federal funding we will receive next year; it's the latest point we have ever seen,' Thompson said.
State education officials told Thompson not to expect to receive any money under federal Title II, used for teacher development and initiatives to reduce class sizes.
Paul Beaudin, the new president of MCC, sounded the alarm that Trump administration changes to make Pell Grants students take more courses to stay eligible could jeopardize continued support; 34% of MCC's students are in the program.
'Many of our students are working full time and the age of our students tends to be higher as well.They don't have the time to take on an additional course load,' Beaudin said.
Dept. of Education weakened
Hassan said while President Donald Trump lacks the authority to unilaterally abolish the Department of Education, his administration has taken steps in that direction.
'By taking away funds, slowing down the flow of grants or canceling them altogether they are effectuating a significant weakening of the department if not abolishing it,' Hassan said.
Goodlander said she's working on a congressional task force to support the Department of Education's work.
'This is a really difficult time and a real challenge for families and students,' Goodlander said.
Goodlander joins task force to support DOE's work
U.S. Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., answers questions from reporters after co-hosting a roundtable about challenges local and state educators face in dealing with the future of the U.S. Dept. of Education.
Others serving on the roundtable Monday were Catherine Provencher, chancellor of the University System of New Hampshire; Stephanie Lesperance, chief strategy officer of N.H. GEAR UP Alliance; Erin Anderson, principal of Sunset Heights Elementary School in Nashua; and Sue Hannan, president of the Manchester Education Association.
An hour before the Hassan-Goodlander event, top federal Department of Health and Human Services officials hosted a celebration of the 60th anniversary of Head Start, a program to fight poverty that has grown into a national model for early learning, health and nutrition, and family support to over 40 million children and families.
'Since its creation, Head Start has offered a foundation to address vulnerable families' most pressing concerns,' said Andrew Gradison, acting assistant secretary at the Administration of children and Families.
'As we look to the future, we are excited to update the program to best serve the children of the 21st century.'
The Head Start celebration was held at the Community Action Partnership of Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties offices on Silver Street in Manchester.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jan. 6 attack gets in the way of Republican talking points on ICE protests
Reflecting on the recent protests in Los Angeles, Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin told CNN that he considered it 'absolutely insane' to see protesters 'carrying a foreign flag.' When 'State of the Union' host Dana Bash reminded the Oklahoma senator that carrying a flag 'is not illegal,' Mullin quickly interjected, 'A foreign flag while you're attacking law enforcement, it's pretty bad.' Of course, during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Americans also saw foreign flags and rioters attacking law enforcement, and much of the Republican Party now treats those violent criminals as victims and heroes. A day before Mullin's on-air comments, U.S. Customs and Border Protection used its social media platform to issue a statement that read, 'Let this be clear: Anyone who assaults or impedes a federal law enforcement officer or agent in the performance of their duties will be arrested and swiftly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Attack a cop, and life long consequences will follow!' That certainly seemed like an uncontroversial sentiment, except, again, Jan. 6 rioters assaulted and impeded law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties. And while they were arrested and prosecuted, and it appeared that many of them might face serious consequences, Trump returned to the White House and started handing out pardons — including to those who were convicted of violent assaults. And then there was FBI Director Kash Patel, who published a related online item of his own over the weekend: 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail ... doesn't matter where you came from, how you got here, or what movement speaks to you.' Not only did the president who appointed Patel come to the opposite conclusion when handing out Jan. 6 pardons, but the comment also brought to mind this Mother Jones report published after Patel's Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year. [Patel] hailed January 6 rioters convicted of violence against police officers as 'political prisoners.' ... Several Democrats pressed Patel on his work with the J6 Prison Choir, a group of January 6 rioters who recorded a version of the national anthem mashed up with Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The song became a mainstay at Trump's campaign rallies. Patel told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that he promoted the song to raise money for the families of January 6 attackers. To be sure, 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail' seemed like an undebatable point. The trouble is, in the Trump administration, it's a maxim that comes with some important fine print: 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail, unless the president likes the reason you hit a cop, in which case you're getting a pardon.' This article was originally published on
USA Today
30 minutes ago
- USA Today
What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests
What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests Show Caption Hide Caption California officials take on Trump over National Guard deployment California officials accuse President Donald Trump of inflaming protests by mounting a federal response. Protests continued to roil Los Angeles, California for three days straight over the weekend, as demonstrators clashed with law enforcement across the greater area over a series of federal immigration raids. The protests began Friday, June 6 after Homeland Security officials detained dozens of people across multiple locations in the city. By that evening, more than 100 people gathered at a downtown Los Angeles federal detention center where some immigrants had been held. The demonstrations gained steam throughout the weekend in response to a Saturday morning gathering of Border Patrol agents the Latino suburb of Paramount and as National Guard troops deployed by President Donald Trump arrived in downtown Los Angeles Sunday, June 8. Live updates: Gov. Newsom blames Trump for unruly protests Timeline: LA protests went from small to substantial over three days. Here's what unfolded The National Guard deployment, along with statements from Trump and other officials, has raised the specter of further executive actions while the administration takes a heavy hand in responding to the demonstrations and tensions escalate. Trump was asked about the potential of invoking the Insurrection Act, an unprecedented move in recent memory, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement. Here's what to know. What is the Insurrection Act? The Insurrection Act is an 1807 law that empowers a president to deploy the U.S. military to suppress events like civil disorder. 'The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy the military inside the United States and use it against Americans, making it one of the executive branch's most potent emergency powers,' according to a 2022 report by the Brennan Center for Justice. It's also one of the oldest emergency powers available to the president, the center says, traced back to the Calling Forth Act of 1792. It's Congress's authority under the Constitution to 'provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,' and is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, the center's experts say, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. What has Trump said about invoking the Insurrection Act? In a social media post on Sunday, Trump called the demonstrators "violent, insurrectionist mobs" and said he was directing his cabinet officers "to take all such action necessary" to stop what he called riots. When asked on Sunday by reporters if he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act, he said, "It depends on whether or not there's an insurrection." Prompted as to whether he thinks there currently is an insurrection, he said, "No, no, but you have violent people and we're not going to let them get away with it." In Trump's presidential memorandum deploying "at least" 2,000 National Guard troops, he said the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and referred to the demonstrations as a 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. It is the first time in decades a president has moved to deploy troops in such a manner without a governor's consent or explicit invitation, Reuters reported, and the move has prompted California Gov. Gavin Newsom to say he plans to sue the administration over the deployment. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on X Friday that active duty Marines at its West Coast base were on 'high alert' and would be mobilized if 'violence continues,' claiming the demonstrations were a national security risk. In his statement on X, Hegseth repeated the unfounded claim of an invasion by immigrants facilitated by criminal organizations, a once-fringe theory that now undergirds the administration's immigration crackdown. Senior White House aide Stephen Miller on Saturday condemned protests, posting on X: "This is a violent insurrection." More: Videos show Waymo cars on fire amid LA protests; service reportedly suspended Has the Insurrection Act been used before? In 230 years, the Act has been invoked in response to 30 crises, according to the Brennan Center for Justice report, but it has not always led to the actual deployment of troops. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, the Brennan Center says in a report that lists out the history of the act's use. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, also in response to unrest and demonstrations in California. Unlike the current immigration raid protests, the governor of California at the time requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial, after four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted in their trial for beating the Black motorist. The unrest had already been mostly quelled by state-controlled National Guard troops before the federal troops arrived, the Brennan Center said. Contributing: Reuters. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Nationwide injunctions are un-American — the Supreme Court must halt them now
Seventy-seven million Americans elected Donald Trump last November. They elected him to make us safer, to restore law and order, and to return common sense to our country. Since his inauguration, President Trump has carried out his promises to the American people, issuing executive orders on a range of policy objectives. That's how it should work in our country — the people choose the president and the president directs the executive branch to enact his agenda. In the opening months of the second Trump administration, however, we've seen a new resistance to Trump's policies. This resistance is anti-democratic and contrary to the rule of law. And it's coming from within the federal judiciary. Since Trump took office, federal district court judges have issued more than 40 nationwide injunctions blocking his agenda. That's on top of 64 issued during his first term, representing a majority of all the nationwide injunctions ever issued in American history. Often filed by liberal activists before sympathetic judges in carefully selected jurisdictions, a nationwide injunction enjoins conduct across the entire country. In this way, it departs from the proper role of a court in adjudicating a particularized dispute between clearly identified parties. Nationwide injunctions have no basis in American legal traditions or English common law. They violate principles of judicial restraint. And their increased use has serious consequences for constitutional order. The Constitution limits judicial power to only those 'cases' and 'controversies' before the courts. That makes sense. Judges shouldn't be issuing decisions that constrain people who never even set foot in the courtroom. But with a nationwide injunction, one federal judge can block a policy affecting millions, creating a judicial policy veto that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Beyond these clear constitutional problems, nationwide injunctions hurt the uniform and efficient administration of justice. These injunctions, especially when issued as temporary restraining orders, don't allow for thorough fact-finding, meaning appellate courts wind up reviewing an incomplete and inaccurate record. They also unfairly benefit special-interest plaintiffs who file identical suits in multiple jurisdictions, because the plaintiffs need only succeed in convincing one court, while the government must successfully defend every case in every jurisdiction. The rise of nationwide injunctions, and their obvious abuses during the first four months of the Trump administration, demand a response. In the House of Representatives, we've passed a bill drafted by Rep. Issa that would restrict a federal judge's ability to issue a nationwide injunction. It's up to the Senate to send it to the president's desk. The Judiciary Committee and its Courts Subcommittee, which we respectively chair, have held hearings and done oversight about the abuse of nationwide injunctions. We've urged congressional appropriators to use the power of the purse to force the judiciary to make reforms. And our work isn't done. But the institution that's best positioned to stop the abuse of nationwide injunctions sits just across from the Capitol Building. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week about nationwide injunctions in an immigration case. That appeal gives the court a chance to rein in the abuse of such injunctions and force lower-court judges to stick to their proper constitutional role. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts famously equated the job of a judge to that of a baseball umpire — calling balls and strikes, and nothing more. Applying his metaphor, a nationwide injunction would mean that an umpire's ball-and-strike call in Cleveland would apply to the game in San Diego, in Houston, and everywhere else. That wouldn't fly in our national past-time and it shouldn't be acceptable in our nation's courtrooms. Our nation is the greatest because 'We the People' have the ultimate authority. We are blessed to live in a democracy where the policy decisions are made by those elected to office — not by unaccountable bureaucrats or unelected judges. The policy agenda of a president elected by 77 million people shouldn't hinge on the separate approvals of 677 unelected district court judges. The Supreme Court must end the abuse of nationwide injunctions. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) oversees the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) chairs its Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
