Trump signs executive orders stripping federal funding from schools that teach CRT, supporting school choice
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on education, one to remove federal funding from K-12 schools that teach critical race theory (CRT), and another to support school choice.
Trump's executive order on CRT, "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling," reads, "Parents have witnessed schools indoctrinate their children in radical, anti-American ideologies while deliberately blocking parental oversight."
It goes on to say that "Such an environment operates as an echo chamber, in which students are forced to accept these ideologies without question or critical examination. In many cases, innocent children are compelled to adopt identities as either victims or oppressors solely based on their skin color and other immutable characteristics."
The executive order states that any K-12 school that does not comply with the directive to end discrimination will lose all federal funding, citing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination over race, color, and national origin for any activity or program receiving federal funding.
Trump's executive order on school choice, "Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families," cites the National Assessment of Educational Progress Report Card, highlighting that "70 percent of 8th graders were below proficient in reading, and 72 percent were below proficient in math."
"When our public education system fails such a large segment of society, it hinders our national competitiveness and devastates families and communities," the executive order reads. "For this reason, more than a dozen States have enacted universal K-12 scholarship programs, allowing families — rather than the government — to choose the best educational setting for their children."
Among other actions, it also directs the Secretary of Education, within 60 days of the order, to "issue guidance regarding how States can use Federal formula funds to support K-12 educational choice initiatives," as well as directs the Secretaries of Labor and Education, within 90 days of the executive order, to propose plans to use grant programs to further educational choice.
"President Trump just showed the American people why he won the parent vote by 9 points," Corey DeAngelis, senior fellow at the American Culture Project and executive director of the Educational Freedom Institute, told Fox News Digital. "Parents want to be able to direct the upbringing of their children. Parents need to be in charge of their children's education, not the government."
Randi Weingarten, president of the 1.6 million-member American Federation of Teachers, voiced her concern about the educational freedom executive order in a Wednesday press release, saying, "Americans of all political stripes want safe and welcoming public schools where kids are engaged and have the knowledge and skills to thrive in careers, college and life. This plan is a direct attack on all that parents and families hold dear; it's a ham-fisted, recycled and likely illegal scheme to diminish choice and deny classrooms resources to pay for tax cuts for billionaires."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Patents and economies of scale support Pfizer's wide moat
Pfizer's innovative business should grow faster after it divests its off-patent division Upjohn in 2020 to create Viatris and Mylan. With fewer older medications and fewer patent losses, Pfizer is well-positioned for consistent growth, excluding the erratic sales of Covid-19-related products. The company is less vulnerable to any one patent loss thanks to its wide range of medications. Because of its more complex manufacturing process and more affordable prices, Pfizer's stronger position in the vaccine marketwhich includes the pneumococcal vaccine Prevnarmakes it more resilient to generic competition. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with PFE. With a 30% to 80% reduction, Trump's executive order would establish a "most favored nation" policy in which the US would pay the same amount for prescription medications as the nation with the lowest price. It is anticipated that this policy, which was previously blocked by courts, will reduce the US's annual drug spending of over $400 billion, saving taxpayers over a seven-year period. Given that drug prices in the United States are high when compared to other countries, Pfizer's U.S. revenue could be drastically impacted by the 30% to 80% price cut, especially for high-margin medications. International reference pricing policies have long been opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which claims they could hinder innovation and limit access to new companies anticipate that the order will target Medicare and may have an impact on medications not covered by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. President Trump has said that significant tariffs on pharmaceutical products will probably be announced soon. He has also put a 90-day hold on broader tariffs for the majority of his trading partners to give them time to negotiate. Despite being mostly exempt from tariffs, the biopharma industry is preparing for a possible pharma-specific announcement that might affect global manufacturing strategies. Products made in Europe and imported into the US may be subject to the rumored 25% tariff, necessitating the construction of new facilities that will take years to complete. Due to home country manufacturing, tax benefits, lower production costs, and exposure to currency fluctuations, businesses based in the US and Europe are heavily exposed to European manufacturing. Because drug spending is not cyclical, the direct effect of tariffs on earnings is probably going to be minimal, and the indirect effect of a possible recession should also be minimal. With the exception of small-scale US capacity expansions, biopharma is unlikely to completely reevaluate its manufacturing footprint if pharmaceutical tariffs are implemented but are lifted after 2026 as a result of political pressure from the midterm elections. Leadership in Vaccines Pfizer stands out with its dominant position in vaccines, most notably its highly successful COVID-19 vaccine developed in partnership with BioNTech. This vaccine not only generated significant revenue but also established Pfizer as a leader in mRNA technology, a platform with potential applications in oncology, rare diseases, and beyond. Johnson & Johnson (J&J): J&J also developed a COVID-19 vaccine, but it was less widely adopted due to lower efficacy rates and safety concerns, giving Pfizer a clear advantage in this high-impact area. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): GSK has a strong vaccine portfolio (e.g., shingles and meningitis vaccines) but did not independently develop a COVID-19 vaccine, relying on partnerships like Sanofi, which delayed its entry and diminished its competitive stance. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS): BMS has no significant presence in vaccines, focusing instead on oncology and immunology, making Pfizer's vaccine leadership a unique strength. R&D Capabilities and Pipeline Focus Pfizer's R&D efforts are concentrated on high-growth therapeutic areas such as oncology, vaccines, and rare diseases. Its ability to leverage mRNA technology and rapidly develop innovative therapies underscores its R&D prowess. J&J: J&J's R&D spans pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health. While this diversification provides stability, it may dilute J&J's focus on cutting-edge pharmaceutical innovation compared to Pfizer's targeted approach. GSK: GSK excels in respiratory diseases and HIV research, but its pipeline is less broad and lacks the same level of innovation in emerging technologies like mRNA that Pfizer is advancing. BMS: BMS has a strong oncology pipeline, particularly in immuno-oncology, but its narrower focus limits its competitiveness in other high-growth areas where Pfizer thrives, such as vaccines and rare diseases. Global Reach and Market Presence Pfizer operates in over 150 countries, giving it a vast global footprint that enhances its ability to distribute products and capture market share across both developed and emerging markets. J&J: J&J also has a global presence, but its focus is split across pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health, potentially reducing its pharmaceutical market penetration compared to Pfizer. GSK: GSK is strong in Europe and emerging markets but less dominant in the U.S., the world's largest pharmaceutical market, where Pfizer has a significant advantage. BMS: BMS focuses heavily on the U.S. and Europe, with less presence in emerging markets, limiting its global scale compared to Pfizer. Brand Reputation and Trust The success of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine has significantly boosted its brand recognition and trust among consumers, healthcare providers, and governments, reinforcing its market position. J&J: J&J enjoys a strong reputation in consumer health, but its pharmaceutical division lacks the same level of visibility and trust as Pfizer's, particularly after COVID-19 vaccine challenges. GSK: GSK is well-regarded in respiratory and HIV treatments but does not have the broad public recognition that Pfizer has achieved. BMS: BMS is respected in oncology but lacks the widespread brand prominence that Pfizer has cultivated. Innovation in Emerging Technologies Pfizer's investment in mRNA technology positions it as a pioneer in pharmaceutical innovation, with potential applications in vaccines, cancer treatments, and more, giving it a forward-looking edge. J&J: J&J innovates in medical devices and consumer health but trails Pfizer in adopting next-generation pharmaceutical technologies like mRNA. GSK: GSK focuses on innovation in respiratory and HIV treatments but has not made significant advances in mRNA or other emerging platforms. BMS: BMS drives innovation in immuno-oncology but lacks Pfizer's breadth and leadership in cutting-edge technologies. Pfizer's competitive edge over Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol Myers Squibb lies in its unmatched leadership in vaccines, particularly through mRNA technology, combined with a robust R&D pipeline, extensive global reach, substantial financial resources, strong brand reputation, and a focus on innovation. While J&J benefits from diversification, GSK from efficiency, and BMS from oncology expertise, none rival Pfizer's comprehensive strengths across these critical areas, ensuring its dominance in the pharmaceutical landscape. Pfizer's broad moat is supported by patents, economies of scale, and a strong distribution network. Strong pricing power derived from Pfizer's patent-protected medications allows the company to produce returns on investment that exceed its cost of capital. The company can develop the next generation of drugs before generic competition appears thanks to the patents. Furthermore, even though Pfizer has a wide range of products, there is some product concentration, as Prevnar accounts for slightly more than 10% of total sales (not including sales of the COVID-19 vaccine).However, because of the vaccine's complicated manufacturing process and comparatively low cost, we don't anticipate typical generic competition. Ibrance and Eliquis each account for nearly 10% of sales. On the other hand, we anticipate that new products will eventually lessen the competition from generic versions of important medications. In order to lessen the pressure on margins from lost sales of high-margin drugs, Pfizer's operating structure permits cost-cutting after patent losses. All things considered, Pfizer's well-established product line generates the massive cash flows required to cover the typical $800 million in development expenses for each new medication. For smaller pharmaceutical companies without Pfizer's resources, the company's robust distribution network positions it as a solid partner. On April 15, President Donald Trump issued an executive order outlining possible policy changes intended to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals in the United States. The biopharma industry is looking forward to these changes because they have the potential to either help or hurt innovation. In the worst situation, international price benchmarks have the potential to drastically cut US drug prices and lessen financial incentives for international drug development. On the plus side, eliminating the "pill penalty" that only grants small molecule medications nine years of Medicare negotiation protection may promote innovation across all treatment modalities. Trump's executive order may have a positive or negative impact on the industry, but it has no effect on valuations or uncertainty ratings. The protection period is not specified in Trump's request that US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. collaborate with Congress to address the pill penalty, which is contingent upon Congressional action. Since innovation and a favorable mergers and acquisitions climate support long-term pricing power and offset possible short-term tariff pressure, rising tax rates, and approval delays, the biopharma industry seems undervalued. Due to liver damage in a clinical trial, Pfizer has announced the discontinuation of danuglipron, an oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist. In the anticipated $200 billion global GLP-1 market by 2031, the company sought to provide a potential second-to-market oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist, behind Lilly's orforglipron. Clinical trial failures and declining demand for Pfizer's COVID vaccine and antiviral medication have hurt the company's growth. Because of its diverse pipeline and portfolio, Pfizer is expected to have a wide-moat case, protecting it from the effects of individual program failures, especially those involving high-risk programs like danuglipron. Other medication candidates might benefit from Pfizer's objective of turning danuglipron into a once-daily business could use its $15 billion acquisition budget to fund the development of more sophisticated medication candidates. Efforts in Genetic Engineering: A solid growth driver for Pfizer is the strong pipeline of innovative treatment options, especially in oncology and immunology, which take the leap with cutting-edge scientific technology. To be more specific, Pfizer's resource allocation to immuno-oncology is evident, developing of checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. For instance, this method of treatment mitigates the immune system's ability to detect and destroy the specified cancer cells by varying the immune system response or, in some cases, by using specially modified T-cells that can identify the particular antigens on tumors that are solely expressed in those particular tumors, which are in question. This is the area of advancement where Pfizer has outdone the rest as they are perfecting monoclonal antibody formatsdesigning them in a way that they will bind more tightly and specifically to targets using protein engineeringand they are also testing out bispecific antibodies that trigger switches at two targets, therefore enhancing healing by more than one method. The pipeline is further supported by vast R&D investment in gene therapy and precision medicine, which utilize adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector platforms for gene delivery and next-generation sequencing for actionable mutation identification respectively. These endeavors are aimed at enhancing the overall patient health and market potential of the drugs by changing the treatment convention from testing a wide spectrum to one that is genotype-driven. Clinical trials are usually designed in a way to be fast-tracked so that they can move quickly to the next stage of development. By focusing on such advanced technologies, Pfizer is embarking on capturing a large section of the market with high-growth therapeutic branches, thus gaining revenue through innovation guided by complex disease biology. Revenue Growth: The launching of these high-value treatments is expected to increase revenue as well as drive down costs for Pfizer. Most of the drugs that are released in the onco-immunology field possess a technical edge and therapeutic effectiveness, therefore, these new treatements often demand high price. These drugs are capable of pumping up profits significantly once they clear regulatory hurdles and find their way onto the market. take the example of just-above successful immuno-oncology drug sales, which always have brisk selling and marvelous sales. In addition, Pfizer can speed-up the whole clinical process with something like adaptive trial designs, this process will be quicker and thus benefits are obtained faster from the new products. Impact on profitability The weight on profitability depends on the ratio of costs and returns. What is actually known is that lamas like the checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T treatments that are so good require a lot of investment in R&D. But there is an inherent advantage for these drugs thanks to their patent protection that comes with market exclusivity, which in turn, allows Pfizer to keep its pricing strategy stick and generate very high profits. Success in the selling of the product along the lines of this new dimension along with the efficiency of producing more could prove to be the road to better profitability. However, there are barriers such as competition from other drug companies plus the worry of the price cuts from payers that can erode this success. So if Pfizer is able to eliminate the competition and stays ahead in the game by reducing costs as well, these high markups brought about by the introduction of such innovative drugs should positively affect the total profitability of the company. Generic competition, possible changes to government drug pricing policies, the more stringent FDA, and more powerful managed-care and pharmacy benefit managers present Pfizer with difficulties in drug development. In some disease areas, developing new drugs is getting harder, and pharmacy benefit managers and managed-care organizations have grown to be strong players with the ability to bargain for cheaper drug costs. Nearly one-fourth of the company's total sales are generated by its medications, Eliquis, Ibrance, and Xtandi, and they are heavily exposed to the Medicare channel. Given that Pfizer's product portfolio is less vulnerable to potential litigation, the company's base-case annual legal costs, assuming a 50% probability of future costs associated with product governance ESG risks, come close to 1% of non-GAAP net income. Pfizer's valuation multiples highlights their strong financial position and potential undervaluation. Their P/E Non-GAAP ratios7.61 (FY1), 7.42 (FY2), and 7.44 (FY3)are lower than JNJ's 14.00 (FY1) and SNY's 10.80 (FY1), suggesting investors may undervalue our earnings potential. The PEG Non-GAAP (FWD) of 1.49 is competitive, higher than SNY's 0.76 but below JNJ's 1.70, reflecting moderate growth prospects. Pfizer's EV/Sales (TTM) of 2.81 is more conservative than JNJ's 4.21, while the EV/EBITDA (FWD) of 7.13 compares favorably to JNJ's 11.45, indicating operational efficiency. The Price to Book (TTM) of 1.44 is significantly lower than JNJ's 5.23, and our Price to Cash Flow (TTM) of 9.29 beats JNJ's 15.67, underscoring robust cash flow generation. These metrics position Pfizer as a value opportunity among peers After the Seagen acquisition, Pfizer released its 2024 guidance, which included a $8 billion COVID-19 product guidance$5 billion less than anticipated. The business admitted that, excluding sales of COVID-19 products, it would not meet the prior growth-rate projection of 6% from 2020 to 2025. Pfizer reaffirmed its support for the dividend, which is regarded as safe and likely to boost stock valuation, despite the deteriorating outlook. Over the next ten years, the company anticipates steady sales as new products counteract older medications that are losing their patent protection. From the middle of 2023 to the end of 2024, Pfizer is anticipated to reduce operating expenses by $4 billion, which will aid the company in adjusting to the waning pandemic and declining sales of COVID-19 products. Growth could be accelerated through acquisitions, and future margin pressure could be reduced through restructuring initiatives. It is estimated that Pfizer's weighted average cost of capital is 7% and its cost of equity is 7.5%. Activist investor Jeffrey Smith's recent stake worth $407 million could presage the much needed turnarounds at Pfizer. Investors and shareholders can reasonably expect further cost-cuts and an efficient use of capital, leading to higher margins and free cashflow. This case could follow the path of Walt Disney, albeit with less drama, where Jeff Ubben of ValueAct had a pivotal role in Disney's turnaround campaign. The large-cap biopharma company Pfizer's debt size, business cyclicality, and debt maturity outlook all contribute to its sound balance sheet and low risk levels. To support opportunistic acquisitions and handle product litigation issues with little market concern, the company should have a strong enough balance sheet. Pfizer spends slightly less on R&D than the industry average, with a mid- to high-teens percentage of sales. Patent losses are offset by the company's robust pipeline of next-generation medications. The company's investment in cutting-edge new medications, mostly aimed at immunology and oncology, improves its standing and increases returns on capital. For biopharma companies in the sector, this balance sheet strength is essential. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill Maher Jokes the Musk-Trump Feud Is Like if ‘Godzilla Was on Ketamine and King Kong Had a Combover'
Bill Maher vowed that he wouldn't 'pretend I can really think about anything other than the Trump-Elon thing' during his monologue on Friday's 'Real Time.' He was referring of course to the very bitter (and weird) public fight between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Maher compared the matter to ''Godzilla vs. King Kong'… if Godzilla was on ketamine and King Kong had a combover.' 'Man, these guys were so close, it was like Brangelina or benniffer,' Maher continued, joking that Trump and Musk also had their own couple name, 'Elump.' 'What happened… this has been brewing for a while, okay, people, the first sign was last week at Elon's little going away party. Remember that? And Elon showed up with a black eye…. he said it was because he was roughhousing with his kid and the kid clocked him. And yeah, I believe that,' Maher continued. 'And so Trump said, 'I offered him a little makeup… and he turned it down.' 'And then Trump said, 'which was interesting.' Yeah, weird. Elon, what sort of man turns down makeup?' Maher added, at which point he caught his audience up on the blow by blow. This included how Musk called Trump's 'big beautiful bill' a 'disgusting abomination,' how Trump said Musk has 'Trump derangement syndrome,' and how Musk said Trump's tariffs will cause a recession. Maher also amusingly flubbed the last bit, saying 'erection' to laughter from the audience before correcting to 'recession.' Maher also reminded viewers how Trump claimed Musk was only mad 'because I took away the mandate for his electric vehicles, which nobody really wants anyway,' and how Musk angrily declared Trump wouldn't even be president without his help. 'And then the s— got real. And Trump said, 'Well, you know what, Mars is, a s—hole planet,' Maher joked. Maher then noted how Musk has even claimed Trump is somehow implicated in the Epstein files and is actively covering it up, adding, 'now this is just a war that is going back and forth and back and forth, and the stakes are so high because the winner faces Blake Lively.' 'That's where we are with this. The latest update is tomorrow. Apparently, Elon is going to be coming by to the White House to pick up his CDs and the mixtape they made together… But it looks like it may go from a war of words to a you know, other stuff, because Trump is now saying he might cancel Elon subsidies and Elon's contracts. Cool. So I guess in the end, Elon did save the taxpayer money,' Maher quipped. You can watch the whole monologue below: The post Bill Maher Jokes the Musk-Trump Feud Is Like if 'Godzilla Was on Ketamine and King Kong Had a Combover' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You Were Cut Off For Not Supporting Trump, We Want To Hear Your Story
America has become increasingly polarized in the last decade, and much of the blame, IMO, goes to one man: President Donald Trump. Trump's divisive policies and rhetoric have torn apart friendships, communities, and families. The cult-like behavior from many of his followers has led many people to cut off Trump supporters from their lives. This is something we've covered — but now we want to hear from people who themselves were cut off for not supporting Trump. Related: What Type Of Engagement Ring Is Perfect For You? Plan Your Wedding To Find Out Do you have a family member who stopped speaking to you because you did not vote for Donald Trump? Related: Which Sea Creature Are You? Order At A High-Class Restaurant To Find Out Maybe a friendship of many years ended because you disagreed about Trump's tariffs. Perhaps a partner even broke up with you because you pointed out misinformation or called out misogyny in the current administration. Whatever happened, we want to hear about it. Tell us who cut you off and how it went down in the comments below — or via this anonymous form — and you could be featured in an upcoming BuzzFeed Community post. Also in Community: Wanna Know Which Disney Princess Is Your 100% Personality Twin? Just Eat A Bunch Of Desserts To Find Out Also in Community: There Are 6 Universal Wedding Dress Aesthetics — Here's Your Best Fit Also in Community: I'll Be Really Impressed If You Can Get 15/15 On This Really Hard World Capital Quiz
