Progressive US

The parents of a 5-year-old boy with autism who had been charged with felony assault in Tennessee have filed a lawsuit after a school administrator refused to back down.

The boy had been enrolled at Sumner County’s H.B. Williams Elementary School in the kindergarten class, and school officials were made aware of his special needs.

‘Resorting to legal actions to punish parents for the actions of a 5-year-old child who still needs those supports — that’s just not the way to go.’

The parents said they asked for behavioral support and federal law requires schools to provide extra resources, but the school officials refused and said they would gather their own evidence, according to the lawsuit.

The school agreed to providing an aide after several behavioral incidents involving pushing, shoving, and throwing objects at other children.

The parents said the support came too late.

“When you don’t provide those supports, you can deny rights not only to the child with a disability, but you can risk harming other children,” said Justin Gilbert, the attorney for the family. “It’s a key reminder that there are broad consequences to not providing supports and interventions and paraprofessional roles and special education.”

A 2026 analysis from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) shows a strong negative correlation between the political strength of state teachers’ unions and the adoption of evidence-based early literacy policies.

The New York Post reports at least eight of the ten states where students had the worst literacy scores were liberal bastions with politically powerful teachers’ unions, while just five were Republican and one was a swing state.

The top-performing states were overwhelmingly conservative and had less politically powerful unions — of the 23 top-performing states, 13 were Republican majority and just 4 were Democratic hubs, according to the New York Post.

The fact that literacy rates are inversely correlated with the strength of teachers’ unions tells you everything you need to know about the goals and priorities of teachers’ unions. https://t.co/U9iaMKcJeI

— Wokal Distance (@wokal_distance) September 12, 2026

ANALYSIS: Groups say grants should remain with ‘neutral’ NIH staffers – but nearly all support Democrats

Nearly all donations from National Institutes of Health employees went to Democratic candidates or aligned political action committees, a College Fix analysis found.

The findings come as higher education groups and other liberal advocacy organizations criticize the Trump administration for proposed changes to how research grants are distributed.

The proposed change would require grants to align with the political priorities of the administration in charge at the time. However, some groups argue that decisions should be made by ostensibly neutral bureaucrats, not a president’s political appointees.

Federal research grants, like those from the NIH, should use a “neutral program definition,” the Association of American Universities argued in a public comment. The new grant policy would “inject political and ideological considerations into decisions that have historically been based on scientific merit, programmatic objectives established by Congress, and agency expertise,” the group warned.

Yet across the board, NIH employees support Democrats. And that holds true for the supposedly neutral scientists and program managers who influence the grant decision-making process.

I spent eight years on a school board watching the teachers’ union abandon pay and working conditions for social justice campaigns, grim reaper theatrics, and the claim that biology is optional.

The National Education Association (NEA) is America’s largest teachers’ union, and it holds a rare federal charter issued in 1906. Its mission has changed. Rather than advocating for better working conditions and pay for teachers, it’s focused on gathering activists to further its social justice causes. Should its charter be revoked? My answer is an emphatic YES!

Teachers’ unions don’t care that American children continue to fall behind in reading and math. Instead, they’re focused on abortion rights, protecting sexually explicit materials in schools, and pushing social justice activism. They align themselves with Godless Marxist groups like the Zinn Education Project, which pushes its sacred religion of self-actualization and vilifies capitalism.

As a former elected school board member, I watched the union’s strategy up close. Its priority is electing its chosen candidates so it can control elected officials and advance its far-left extremist political agendas. On Election Day, it passes out literature for its favored candidates, falsely claiming, “this is who the teachers want.” In my district, less than nine percent of school employees are union members, according to tax filings.

Who ultimately decides how the executive branch works? Is it the president, elected by the American people, or career federal employees and the unions that represent them?

The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union representing federal employees, sued the White House’s Office of Personnel Management last month, aiming to block new rules governing how federal employees are evaluated, disciplined, and removed.

The lawsuit represents only the latest in a long series of legal challenges the union has brought against President Donald Trump’s administration since January 2025. According to a July roundup AFGE posted on its website, the union had filed 18 lawsuits against the administration before the latest case.

These lawsuits have targeted a wide range of administration initiatives, including government-wide reorganizations, workforce reductions, collective bargaining restrictions, employee classification reforms, and changes to federal personnel rules.

AFGE has been far from alone in these cases. Democracy Forward, a left-leaning legal advocacy organization that has represented plaintiffs in numerous lawsuits challenging Trump policies, has represented AFGE or other plaintiffs in these cases. Such challenges have involved broad coalitions, including advocacy groups and local governments, alongside labor unions.

Critics argue that these cases amount to more than traditional labor litigation, representing a form of institutional resistance from federal employees and their allies against an elected administration’s effort to reshape the executive branch.

AFGE rejects that characterization. A union spokesman told The Daily Signal that issues involving “politicization of government, corruption, and the refusal to recognize legally valid union contracts” are inseparable from “the everyday experience of federal workers.” The spokesman also accused the administration of engaging in “illegal and retaliatory union-busting” and broader efforts to “rig the system.”