Propaganda Mean Girls of Project 2025 How many times has 4 Public Education corrected false narratives and cherry-picked data shared by the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal? So. Many. Times. Yet, these propaganda "Mean Girls" keep on publishing disinformation right out of the Project 2025 playbook and pushing the "public schools are failing" mantra in their Daily Signal Burn Book. Meanwhile Fairfax County Public School (FCPS) staff steadfastly continue to support and educate Fairfax County students by the hundreds of thousands, and top colleges actively recruit Fairfax County seniors because of the high quality of education. Fortunately, more and more Northern Virginia residents have caught on to the Daily Signal's lies, half-truths, and data fallacies. Nevertheless, the Propaganda Mean Girls are at it again with a September 3, 2026 Daily Signal Opinion piece (see below) by Independent Women's Forum's (IWF) Stephanie Lundquist-Arora, which was amplified by the Fairfax GOP on September 9th (see below), repackaged by the Washington Times on September 16th, before a follow up interview--ominously entitled, VA Schools Failing--with Lundquist-Arora by Larry O'Connor on Salem Media on September 19, 2026. The interview with O'Connor is enlightening (and entertaining) for anyone in the know for multiple reasons. O'Connor says the quiet part out loud (0:30): "We use Fairfax County .... because it is so highly politicized because of its proximity to Washington DC .... What we see in Fairfax County is replicated across the country in a lower profile way, all across the county, because of activists who get on the school board." It has been clear to 4PE that Project 2025 and their affiliates targeted Fairfax County for precisely these reasons; however, this author is presuming that O'Connor may be confused about the definition of "activist" as elected officials are parents, concerned citizens, and neighbors who care about their community. Lundquist-Arora is unable to answer some of her own basic questions: "So like [these jobs] what exactly do you do? The question can't be answered. It's unclear what they do." (6:50). She is quick to criticize different FCPS departments, but never bothers to find out what they do, including FCPS's Green Initiative, Engagement Officer, and Equity Officer. (Look! 4PE found the links quite easily!) O'Connor highlights FCPS outside legal fees (7:30) and questions whether it is about the "transgender issue" (7:55), which hits too close to Lundquist-Arora's own multiple anti-trans lawsuits against FCPS, so Lundquist-Arora pivots to the fake Centreville "whistleblower" legal costs. O'Connor, himself, gives away the Project 2025 Mean Girls goal (3:35) when he says: All you have to do is reach out to Independent Women's Network wherever you are living in the country and say I want to have the tools and resources and training to go after my local school system. Daily Signal Burn Book "Big Reveals" On September 3, 2026 Lundquist-Arora suddenly discovered what everyone else already knew: there is a "performance gap" between students from economically-disadvantaged homes and overall student performance on standardized tests. Or, as the Brookings Institute reported in 2019: "income tracks with test performance." Lundquist-Arora also erroneously referred to these outcomes as "failure rates" rather than "pass rates" wherein she reveals either a strong commitment to a negative narrative and/or a fundamental lack of pedagogical background, since there has been a shift since the 1990's from a "Deficit" model to a "Growth" model which has been the dominant best-practice framework since the 2010s. A Deficit model focuses on what a student cannot do: it may perceive a student as broken and in the need of "fixing." In contrast, a Growth model focuses on what a student knows and builds upon that: students are seen as unique and capable, but may require some support (a.k.a., scaffolding) to achieve success. In Fairfax County, the school system, educators, the Fairfax NAACP, and education advocacy organizations have known and been concerned about opportunity gaps for decades. In fact, FCPS and local advocacy groups have worked hard to narrow opportunity gaps for various groups, including economically-disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learners. Meanwhile propaganda Mean Girls merely take space in Project 2025-affilated publications like the Daily Signal and the Federalist to complain about those same students (see When Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Seeps into Public School Discussions), but do not lift a finger, much less a dollar, to support students or encourage positive student-focused change. Ignoring the fact that this opportunity gap among students of differing income levels is universal and caused by unequal distribution of resources, funding, and life experiences, Lundquist-Arora insisted that Fairfax and Loudoun counties are uniquely failing economically-disadvantaged students and these recent SOL results require "serious examination of whether Fairfax and Loudoun are getting sufficient academic returns on their substantial education spending." Oh my. She must really care.... But, does she care about economically-disadvantaged students when she has advocated against equity measures intended to support disadvantaged students and has repeatedly railed against rights of disadvantaged and marginalized groups? Does she care if she has never really looked at the data before to discover this income opportunity gap associated with standardized testing? Well, Lundquist-Arora also failed to share that the scores for economically-disadvantaged students have improved in the last two years anywhere from four to seven points in Fairfax County, which is an improvement of anywhere from 7 to 14% (see graph below). FCPS has been using targeted academic interventions, expanded math/literacy access, and strategic budgeting to successfully address opportunity gaps. Why ignore that kind of impressive change, unless it interfered with a Mean Girl Burn Book narrative? This author finds that "particularly disconcerting." What is worse, is that Lundquist-Arora's recent FCPS hit-pieces are using long-standing data on economically disadvantaged students to promote the firing of hundreds of hardworking FCPS instructional specialists, who Lundquist-Arora (and/or her Mean Girl partners) chose to name and shame by posting their salaries, positions, and names. Although this information is public information, many might consider this to be doxing, particularly when these employees are our neighbors, friends, and family members. (Note: 4PE has chosen not to link to the 26 pages of names collected and published by Lundquist-Arora.) Speaking of salaries, as a fellow "mom with a spreadsheet," this author would love to find out Lundquist-Aurora's compensation packages from her various Project 2025 gigs, since she manages to repeatedly complain about how much everyone else is making. Burn Books versus Real Reform The Mean Girl coalition of Project 2025, Fairfax GOP, and Salem Media collaborators have been running the same schtick for far too long, and we have all caught on to it. They claim to care about accountability and transparency but are they accountable to anyone else but those who sign their paychecks? Speaking of which, how much are those paychecks, and who is giving their marching orders? While they write Burn Books full of disinformation about FCPS accomplishments, they are standing in the way of progress and actual reform which can help solve opportunity gaps between average SOL scores and those of economically disadvantaged students. How can our schools solve these critical issues when Lundquist-Arora, her boss, and their friends are suing FCPS right and left? Real reform that creates long-lasting impactful change and improves the quality of K-12 public schools involves policies that focus directly on classroom support, evidence-based teaching practices, and student needs, rather than top-down political mandates or directives from Project 2025 Mean Girls. Real reform would involve community stakeholders, educators, and families working together with legislators to provide equitable pupil funding, fair compensation, and other resources to ensure that every child has access to high-quality education regardless of zip code, disability, or any other immutable characteristic. Daily Signal: Stop Trying to Make "Fetch" Happen Secretary McMahon and Lundquist-Arora This regular amplification of Daily Signal's opinion pieces feels very much like the scene from Mean Girls where Gretchen tries to create a new slang term, but fails miserably. Except in this case, Project 2025 is pretending that a paid author is "just a mom" or an "accidental activist" when she has been actively working with Project 2025 partners and/or the Trump Administration for at least four years. Honestly, that is even more cringe than "fetch." IWF, Heritage Foundation, Salem Media, and the Fairfax GOP are collectively trying to make Lundquist-Aurora's "fetch" happen, but their efforts are flopping. Despite their millions of dark money, political intentions, and anti-public school intentions, Northern Virginia knows that Daily Signal is just a Project 2025 propaganda tool and that cherry-picked data provided without context or links is as reliable as a Mean Girl burn book. It is getting to the point that their attacks on FCPS have the depth and consistency of plastic being led by a queen bee whose only hive seems to be a bunch of paid anti-public school collaborators. It's so fetch.

Secretary McMahon trashes Civil Rights protections in public schools What a difference 20 months can make! During the first 20 months of the Trump administration the priorities and regulations of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) changed so dramatically that it doesn’t seem to be the same agency.* Nowhere are the changes more evident than in their Office of Civil Rights (OCR). Historically, the OCR was the place where students, families and organizations lodged complaints about discrimination, harassment and unfair treatment related to public education. In the past, thousands of complaints were made to the ED each year. In fiscal year 2024, the OCR received 22,687 complaints, the highest number on record, and the office also resolved a record number of complaints that year. Most cases that were in progress or pending at the time of the 2025 inauguration involved diversity, equity and inclusion programs, disability complaints and policies that helped transgender students. Those cases were quickly frozen and there is no telling when, or even if, those cases will be addressed during the tenure of this administration. Prior to the 2025 Trump inauguration, ED priorities were aligned with those of most educators and families, including: Providing an excellent and equitable education to help each student achieve academic success; Closing the gap from pandemic learning loss, with the academic, social, emotional and mental health resources needed to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic; Providing educators and schools with the tools and resources to ensure students most impacted by the pandemic make strong academic progress and are able to succeed; Prioritizing equity and belonging by supporting students and educators in communities most in need; Strengthening the continuum from pre-kindergarten through grade 12 and beyond, including career pathways, higher education, and the workforce; Supporting educators to accelerate students’ learning; and, Providing equitable access to high-quality programs and resources to ensure students thrive, no matter their zip code. Broadly speaking, the Trump Administration ED priorities are now: Closing the ED; Expanding use of public funds for private schools; Dismantling “DEI” and “Gender Ideology” policies at state and local levels; Reversing the last five decades of civil rights advancements in public schools; Increasing artificial intelligence in education; and Advancing patriotic education. One would be hard pressed to find an educator, family, or student who would support such priorities for K-12 public schools. Extreme New Priorities for the Office of Civil Rights Since January 2025, the focus and priorities of the Trump Administration transformed the OCR. Instead of helping to resolve complaints of discrimination and harassment as was statutorily obligated, enforcement priorities changed for the OCR when the Trump Administration released Executive Order (EO) 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, 90 FR 17537 (Apr. 28, 2025). With those and other new executive orders, priorities, and revised regulations, the Trump administration could now investigate schools that did not follow his new priorities and orders. Subsequently, the Trump Administration rewrote the ED regulations, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), to be consistent with President Trump’s Executive Order which meant the removal of ‘disparate impact’ as grounds for enforcing civil rights laws. Disparate impact is a “key tool used to assess discrimination" and refers to discriminatory practices that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another group, whether intentional or not. Under the Trump revision, discrimination must be proved to be “intentional” to be considered discrimination, even if data demonstrates that one group is clearly negatively impacted more than another group (e.g., school discipline policies). So, as of July 2026, no longer was it the role of the OCR to ensure that students could receive a quality education free of discrimination. Radical Restructuring of the OCR In addition to revising the focus and priorities of the OCR, the Trump administration radically changed the structure of the office. A reduction in force removed half of the 520 employees and six of the 12 regional offices. But the most troubling structural change is how complaints will be handled: although complaints are still received by the OCR, under the ED-DOJ interagency agreement the complaints are referred to the U.S. Department of Justice’s civil rights office, where they will be evaluated, investigated, and many if not all of the complaints will be resolved by the DOJ. Historically complaints were evaluated and resolved by the OCR. This change in civil rights law enforcement is troubling because the two departments operate in very different ways. The OCR was required to consider every complaint it received, with resolutions often negotiated between parties by the OCR. In contrast, the DOJ tends to pursue litigation. Also, the transfer of responsibility to the DOJ may provide more power and effective legal options to the Trump administration to investigate and prosecute schools and districts that are not following the administration’s policies on DEI and transgender students. In 2025 the Trump administration withheld billions of dollars from public schools while the administration determined whether those school programs aligned with President Trump’s priorities. For example, investigations were initiated into 43 school districts in three states to determine how they taught about sexuality and gender identity, and whether parents are given the opportunity to opt their children out of lessons that conflict with religious beliefs. Already more than half (27) of the states in the nation have agreed to restrict transgender girls from participating in girls' athletics. As of September 17, 2026, the OCR has initiated at least 211 investigations of schools based on revised priorities by the Trump administration rather than actual complaints from students, families or organizations. Recently the administration threatened the tax-exempt status of private schools that give race-based preference in admissions. Source: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/see-which-schools-trumps-education-department-is-investigating-and-why/2025/03 More Cuts Expected at the OCR There is no indication that the radical changes to the ED are over. The President’s budget submitted to Congress last spring calls for continued cuts to the OCR as part of an overall 35 percent cut to civil rights office funding for FY2027. Meanwhile the enhanced power of the Trump Administration to investigate and litigate can financially burden, and possibly break, school districts that want to challenge the Trump administration’s interpretation of civil rights laws. Due to the abdication of OCR responsibilities by the Trump Administration, students and their families are being left vulnerable to discrimination and harassment because the OCR cannot support them as it once did. This will have the greatest effect on students of color and other marginalized students who tend to face higher rates of discrimination and harassment. The guardrails once in place have been removed and the new system limits the ability of the federal government to protect students from harm as they pursue their education. * The federal government’s role in public education is to provide targeted funding, enforce civil rights, set national standards in specific areas, and support innovation and equity, while leaving core governance to states and localities. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants the states authority over education.

Lake Braddock protest over weapons duties At Lake Braddock Secondary School, instructional employees have spent the past year drawing a clear line: school safety matters, but weapons detection duty should not be assigned to teachers and other instructional staff as if it were part of their regular professional role. Union members at Lake Braddock have moved from informal conversations to a formal grievance. They met with school leadership, circulated a petition with 82 signatures, elevated their concerns to regional and district leaders, and, when those steps did not resolve the issue, filed a grievance under Regulation 4465. That grievance has now reached its final stage. The matter is in the hands of the School Board and is being scheduled for an all-day public hearing before a hearings officer on Wednesday, September 23, 2026 at 9am at the Gatehouse Administration Center (8115 Gatehouse Road Falls Church). The dispute is about more than one duty post at one school. It raises a basic question for school systems across the country: when districts add new safety procedures, who is responsible for carrying them out, and where is the line between supporting a safe school and assigning employees work outside their job description? What can the Fairfax Community do? Community members, educators, families, and labor allies can help by paying attention to the September 23rd hearing and its outcome. The core issue is simple enough to explain in one sentence: instructional employees are challenging a weapons detection assignment they believe falls outside their professional responsibilities and job description. Support can take several forms: Attend the all-day public hearing on September 23rd. Follow updates from the impacted staff and their union. Encourage decision-makers to respect job descriptions and assign safety work to properly designated staff. Share media coverage from NBC4, DCNewsNow, and WUSA9 so more people understand the issue. The most useful support stays focused. This is not a debate over whether schools should be safe. Everyone in the school community wants safety. The dispute is about whether the district can place weapons detection duty on instructional employees and call it part of their professional role. The core issue is the meaning of instructional work Every school employee contributes to safety in some way. Teachers notice changes in student behavior. Counselors support students in crisis. Classroom staff help maintain routines and relationships that make schools feel stable. Administrators coordinate emergency protocols. Security staff and other trained personnel carry specific safety responsibilities. The Lake Braddock grievance focuses on where those roles begin and end. The workers’ argument is that weapons detection duty is not an instructional task. It is not lesson planning. It is not assessment. It is not student support in the ordinary educational sense. It is not classroom management. It is not the same as supervising a hallway between classes or monitoring a cafeteria as part of a schoolwide rotation. It is a security function. That distinction matters because job descriptions exist for a reason. They define expectations, training needs, accountability, and the basic bargain between employer and employee. When a district assigns a duty that workers believe falls outside that bargain, it can create several problems at once. It can pull educators away from preparation, parent communication, student support, and other duties tied directly to instruction. It can expose them to responsibilities they may not be trained to handle. It can also blur accountability if an incident occurs. Finally, it can harm their relationship with students who need their support in the classroom. The Lake Braddock petition became a key step before the formal grievance. Why is this Important to Fairfax County Families? Public action can serve several purposes in a labor dispute. It informs families about working conditions inside the school. It signals to decision-makers that employees are organized and willing to speak openly. It also helps workers frame the issue in their own words rather than letting the employer define the dispute alone. In this case, the public message is direct: instructional employees should not be assigned weapons detection duty as part of their regular responsibilities. That message does not reject school safety measures. It challenges who carries them out. The distinction matters for families, too. Parents and caregivers want safe schools. They also want teachers focused on teaching, planning, grading, communicating, and supporting students. If the district relies on instructional staff to fill security functions, families deserve to understand what tradeoffs that creates and how it affects their student's education. Teachers argue that instructional responsibilities should remain centered on student learning. Fairfax County School Board's Role The September 23rd public hearing is the final stage of the grievance. That gives the hearing both procedural and symbolic weight: Procedurally, it is the moment when the grievance reaches the School Board level and is heard before a hearings officer where arguments, facts, and interpretation of Regulation 4465 will be tested in a formal setting. Symbolically, it is a public answer to a year of organizing. The workers have already shown that they are willing to use multiple tools: internal advocacy, petitions, escalation, a formal grievance, protest, and media outreach. Each step has built toward this hearing. The School Board’s role is central because the issue now sits at the intersection of policy and practice, and they should decide a complicated question: If instructional employees can be assigned weapons detection duty, then the district needs to explain how that fits within IPR and the job description. If it does not fit, the district needs to stop assigning it to those workers and identify an appropriate staffing solution. For the workers involved, this is the point where a local concern becomes a public record. The question is no longer just whether a principal or administrator can assign a specific post. The question is whether the district can define core instructional work broadly enough to include weapons detection duty, even when educators say that assignment is not what they were hired, trained, or paid to do. That makes the September 23rd hearing especially important. The outcome could affect more than the employees who filed. A decision may shape how similar disputes are handled later, especially if other schools assign safety-related duties to educators in ways that raise the same job description concerns. Thus, this hearing gives School Board members an opportunity to show how seriously they take worker voice. Any Outcome will reach beyond Lake Braddock School districts across the United States face real pressure to improve safety. Communities expect leaders to prevent harm, respond to threats, and reassure families that students are protected. But safety plans can fail when they depend on stretching job roles instead of building the right staffing model. When new duties appear, they often land on the employees already closest to students. That can happen because they are present, because schedules are tight, or because leaders believe everyone should share responsibility. In schools, that often means teachers and other instructional staff absorb tasks that are only loosely connected to instruction. Over time, those extra duties add up. A few minutes here and there can become lost planning time. A temporary assignment can become routine. A safety measure can become a staffing shortcut. A vague phrase like “other duties as assigned” can become a way to avoid the harder question of whether a task belongs in the role at all. The Lake Braddock grievance challenges that extra duty drift. It asks the district to respect the difference between supporting a safe school and performing a security function. It also asks leaders to recognize that educators’ time is not empty space to be filled with whatever urgent need appears next. That does not mean districts should ignore safety concerns. It means they should address safety with proper staffing, clear responsibilities, and respect for the people doing the work. Actually, if you think about it, the Lake Braddock union grievance is really about being a Lake Braddock Bruin (see Lake Braddock shared vision below). Professional instructional staff should be focused on developing Lake Braddock students' knowledge, skills, and understanding of self and community, not monitoring weapons detectors. These Lake Braddock teachers used their voice, choice, and innovative approaches to advocate for themselves and their community. Now, is our opportunity to support them.

Centreville High School: An SUV and students in the crosswalk (PHOTO: Molly Sullivan) UPDATE: ON 9/15/26, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGREED TO REINSTATE CROSSING GUARDS AT THE AFFECTED HIGH SCHOOLS Fairfax County budget constraints eliminated crossing guards at ten high schools in Fairfax County, and a student has already been hospitalized after being hit by a car. Most of these schools are located on highly trafficked multi-lane roads that can be heavily congested during rush hour in the morning and afternoon, right when students are arriving and leaving school. Needless to say everyone is distracted at those times of the day, so it is unsurprising, yet still truly horrible, that on the seventh morning of the new school year, a student was hit by a car outside South Lakes High School, as reported by Hunter Mill School Board Member Melanie Meren. The entire community hopes that they will recover quickly, and students will be protected. This is exactly what everyone was worried about when the crossing guards were removed from the ten high schools around Fairfax County, particularly at Centreville, Edison, West Springfield, and South Lakes high schools. If the Board of Supervisors (BoS) and Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD) don’t make changes immediately, they will not recover from this, because it’s only a matter of time before a student dies. No one will forgive themselves for that. First, this is a nonpartisan issue. Republicans and Democrats should unite on this effort to keep kids safe. In fact, Supervisor Pat Herrity, School Board member Sandy Anderson, Delegate Laura Jane Cohen, and parents from across the county are advocating for the return of these necessary school crossing services provided by the FCPD and funded by the BoS. The safety of our children should surmount partisan bickering. Second, please immediately contact your BoS representative (find your BoS here) and Chairman Jeff McKay (chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov) to demand crossing guards be returned to our high schools. The BoS holds the purse strings and they are responsible for the defunding of these positions. While you are at it, be sure to cc your school board member and Virginia Delegate or Senator (find your representative's contact here), for good measure, so they can keep track of the level of Fairfax County support for this much needed safety measure. If this is not solved soon, please consider providing testimony for the BoS hearing on September 15th (click here). “Surely, it’s worth the resources to save our children.” - Melanie Meren, Hunter Mill School Board Representative Finally, the BoS holds the purse strings, which means the buck stops with them. However, their funding is directly related to unfulfilled funding requests and requirements from the federal and state government, and demands by Fairfax County residents. If you want to play the “blame game,” there is enough blame to go around, but honestly, that is not particularly helpful right now. The primary focus should be on keeping our high school students safe from Fairfax County traffic. 4 Public Education will provide a blog shortly to provide more details about how this came to happen. It is important to know what went wrong, so that we can all prevent this from happening again. But right now, we just want to empower you and provide the tools to advocate for the safety of Fairfax County Students. Photo shared by: Molly “Sully” Sullivan, FCPS teacher and parent, candidate for School Board Sully District. Molly is one of the hundreds of brave parents keeping an eye on the students as they cross the busy streets of Fairfax County. UPDATE! Since the student was hit at 7:54 this morning, it seems that there is movement on the issue, but that does not mean anyone should slow down their advocacy. Here are statements by FCPS, At-Large School Board member Kyle McDaniel, and Sully Supervisor Walter Alcorn: "This morning, a South Lakes High School student was hit by a car as he crossed the street to school. While we are thankful that the student’s injuries are not serious, this incident serves as a reminder of the critical importance of having crossing guards and other traffic and pedestrian safety measures at our high schools. As we consider longer-term improvements, we have requested that the County restore crossing guards to our high schools with the greatest safety concerns, which includes South Lakes High School. We encourage students, families, and drivers to use extra caution when traveling to and from school, follow all traffic laws, and remain alert for pedestrians and other vehicles. The welfare of our students, staff, and community remains a top priority." - FCPS "I have been in conversation with the Superintendent, School Board Members, and Supervisors across the County to create a solution to this situation. I am optimistic that we can restore crossing guard functions at our high schools through a combination of police officers, crossing guards, school resource officers, and working with VDOT and FCPS Safe Routes to Schools staff. Safety remains a top priority, and I am working diligently to create a sustainable solution." - Kyle McDaniel “I was very sorry to hear about the student hit by a car exiting the South Lakes High School drop-off this morning. While this is not the intersection where a school crossing guard was previously posted, this incident highlights that our school safety programs should not be the target of discretionary cuts. The Board of Supervisors should restore funding for school crossing guards at the other South Lakes Drive entrance — the flag pole entrance — and any other high school that presents an unacceptable risk. During last spring’s budget discussions, I unsuccessfully asked Chairman McKay that high school crossing guards be spared from budget cuts, and cosponsored last week’s board matter that asked for risky crossings to be reviewed and considered for funding restoration or other improvements at the carryover budget review later this month." - Walter Alcorn

All Virginia News brought to you by the Loudoun GOP Stealth Political Propaganda Hidden in Your Local News Click to read more In the crowded online news landscape, distinguishing truly independent outlets from those with hidden agendas is challenging. 4 Public Education has investigated controversial online media sites--All Virginia News (AVN) and Red Virginia News (RVN)--only to find out that they are compromised by partisan politics and run by a a local political party, the Loudoun GOP, without transparency or accountability. All Virginia News = Pink Slime Journalism This type of media is more commonly known as "pink slime" journalism, which is "named after a meat byproduct and describes outlets that publish poor quality" reporting as local news. Effectively, pink slime journalism is "journalism for clicks" where artificial intelligence (AI), using templates and automated content production, creates "news," typically to push a partisan narrative. In fact, an independent review of AVN and RVN has identified that they are using a "pink slime" master template configured for political behavioral profiling, which means they are using data-driven profiling to feed target audiences tailored, hyper-targeted propaganda disguised as independent local news. And they may even be harvesting your personal data.... Kind of terrifying, right? And you just thought you were watching Facebook reels! More on this below. Unfortunately, pink slime journalism become more common as it has has taken the place of independent, accountable news media, due to print and tv media bankruptcies, employee layoffs, and/or larger conglomerates exerting more control over the media produced (e.g., Sinclair Media which runs WJLA ABC7 in the Washington DC area). Two Loudoun GOP Propaganda Sites for the Price of One! After being inundated with Facebook reels from both AVN and RVN in the Spring, this author began investigating the media groups, their content, and their websites. Both websites' design resemble traditional news outlets, bolstering their credibility, but both lack transparency about ownership, funding, and clear editorial guidelines. Interestingly, RVN is transparent about its bias: it purports to be "The Greatest Republican Leaning Newspaper in Virginia." However, its sister site, AVN, is less clear about its biased agenda with only hints at its subversive right-wing spin. For example AVN's editorial style mixes factual reporting with opinionated language, thus blurring the line between news and commentary, and its content often pivots from straight reporting to criticize progressive organizations and echo GOP propaganda. It was surprising to discover that BOTH media sites, AVN and RVN, were originally hosted by the Loudoun County Republican Committee (LCRC, a.k.a., the Loudoun GOP), with former LCRC chairman Scott Pio filing Articles of Organization for AVN and RVN in Spring 2026, and the new LCRC chairman George Taplin filing an annual report for RVN in late July 2026. At this time, it appears that both "news" sites are now located on AVN servers. Of course, none of this information is disclosed on their websites or social media accounts. Instead to find out that the Loudoun GOP is behind TWO "news media" sites, it requires knowledge of how to search for business entities via the Virginia State Corporation Commission website. Technical Analysis of the Propaganda Sites The News should be Honest about Republican Handlers! After the publication of this author's August 4, 2026 blog tying AVN and RVN to the Loudoun GOP, 4PE was contacted by multiple people regarding revelations in the blog. The most enlightening feedback came from a local dad who performed digital forensic analysis on the websites. He found that both allvirginia.news and redvirginianews.com inject the identical site kit by Google plugin on their posts and pages to drive and analyze marketing and visitor traffic. Of course, anyone with eyes can see this, since their style and branding looks almost identical, especially since the AVN and RVN often cover the same subjects (see below), but it was nice to have it confirmed through a technical analysis. Significantly, the email domains of AVN and RVN were both originally hosted on the Loudoun GOP server (below) during the 2024 campaign season, which opens up questions about LCRC campaign finances that are outside of this author's "pay" grade. Someone more knowledgeable of campaign finances could review Loudoun GOP's campaign finance reports (CFR) from those time periods to determine whether these were accounted for correctly. But significant questions remain about data harvesting and finances: Did the Loudoun GOP create an engine for non-consensual data-harvesting while masquerading as "independent news" outlets? Did the Loudoun GOP respect Virginia voters by providing opt-outs to data harvesting? If this technical infrastructure is directly subsidized by the LCRC, how are they recording these political expenditures? Are they violating the law? E.g., there are no "Paid for by LCRC" stickers on any of these digital communications, which may be required by Va. Code § 24.2-956.1. Finally, AVN, RVN, and RVN's parent group, Virginia Guardian, are all hosted on the same server. This would be unusual, except that they are all run by the same political group: the Loudoun GOP. The three groups now use one email server: mail.allvirginia.news (see below). These three media groups sharing servers and email hosts should concern anyone who consumes news, because without transparency about the media source, its bias, or even its reporters, then is it "news" or is it just pink slime propaganda masquerading as news? Attempted Influence in the Democratic Primary As has been already been established (repeatedly), AVN is run by the LCRC without any disclosure to its readers. Since AVN's influence extends beyond online readership into social media and broader conversations, it is shaping narratives around school districts and political figures, thus it can influence both public opinion and local elections. In fact, overt influence was visible on January 29, 2026 when AVN published an anonymous report about a primary school board candidate for the Braddock district, Tom Dannan. The hit piece was heavy on innuendo and hyperbole, and it (see below) was so poorly researched and written that the link had his name misspelled as "Tom Dannen." In fact, AVN failed to even name Dannan's February 28th democratic primary opponent, Ms. Alexa Krezel. Nevertheless, the rumor promulgated by AVN about Dannan's association with ICE and Homeland Security swept through progressive circles in Fairfax County, creating confusion and concern, thereby impacting his reputation during the Democratic primary, which ran from January 16 to February 28, 2026. This same January 29th AVN piece heavily highlighted Dannan's future Republican opponent, Saundra Davis, for the upcoming Braddock District School Board race on March 3, 2026. Not only did AVN share Davis's political platform in the very first paragraph of the piece, but AVN worked hard to portray Dannan's future opponent as a qualified, "independent" candidate, despite her long-time Republican associations and failed efforts to recall School Board members. Fortunately, despite AVN's best efforts, Dannan handily won the March 3rd race. Stealth Propaganda in a Confusing Media Landscape In a world where studies have shown that people are more likely to trust fake local news web sites over real news, pink slime news websites like AVN and RVN can slither their way into a community in the absence of local newpapers. While AVN and RVN present themselves as independent media, they are stealth Republican propaganda sites, increasing polarization and mistrust in the community. Ethical journalism requires transparency and accountability so that people know who is writing for, funding, and hosting a news media website. AVN and RVN have provided none of that information. In fact, they have been careful to hide the most basic facts about who funds, hosts, or even writes for the media sites. This should concern every Virginian, and possibly regulators due to the political nature and influence of these media sites. Other key points to remember about AVN and RVN: They were hosted by the LCRC (aka, Loudoun GOP). Former LCRC chairman Scott Pio registered them with the Commonwealth of Virginia. They use seemingly identical Google site kits for posts and pages to drive and analyze marketing and visitor traffic. Their data-harvesting tactics are concerning, particularly without a privacy notice to consumers. There are open questions about campaign finances and Virginia law associated with these websites, hosting, etc. None of this information is revealed on their webpages or social media sites. All Virginians, no matter their political party, should be concerned about this. Independence and non-partisan perspective in journalism is crucial for public trust, especially when covering sensitive topics like education, local policy, and other news. In the crowded landscape of online news, it can be difficult to distinguish truly independent (i.e., not controlled by or tied to a political party) or non-partisan outlets from those with hidden agendas. Media literacy is essential to critically analyze and evaluate media content. Sites like AVN and RVN highlight the need to question sources and motives behind news.

Virginia Families, Please Convince Governor Spanberger to Protect Funding for Public Schools Now! Governor Spanberger has not yet made the decision to opt Virginia out of the federal voucher program that diverts public funds to private schools. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration and their allies continue to use misinformation to entice the Governor to keep Virginia in the program. As one of his last acts as governor, former Governor Youngkin opted Virginia into the program, so now it is up to Governor Spanberger to protect the Commonwealth's public schools by opting Virginia out of this voucher scheme. Learn more about how this scheme is all risk and no reward below. Public School advocates--students, staff, and families--can help by completing this one-click call to action that will encourage Governor Spanberger, Lieutenant Governor Hashmi, Attorney General Jones, and Secretary of Education Smith to remove Virginia’s participation in the program.

Identifying Stealth Propaganda in a Confusing Media Landscape In the crowded landscape of online news, it can be difficult to distinguish truly independent (i.e., not controlled by or tied to a political party) or non-partisan outlets from those with hidden agendas. One such new media site, All Virginia News (AVN, https://allvirginia.news/), has recently attracted attention for its coverage of Northern Virginia school board and board of supervisors meetings on Facebook where it presents short clips (some of which are old) without context that are creating a quite a “stir,” if you read the comments (note: the comments are wild!). Click to read 4PE's earlier blog about AVN AVN presents itself as an independent, unbiased news source, but 4 Public Education took a closer look in May, which revealed a more complex picture of a stealth Republican media operation revealed through its content, content creators, and public filings. Click on the photo to the right to read how 4PE previously explored the AVN, its political stance, and the tactics it uses, as a stealth Republican media operation, to influence its audience. Loudoun GOP hosts All Virginia News Key points to remember about AVN: AVN is hosted by the Loudoun GOP. Former Loudoun GOP chairman Scott Pio registered AVN with the Commonwealth of Virginia. None of this is revealed on its webpage or social media. 4PE promised to delve deeper into AVN to evaluate: how AVN operates, its impact on public opinion, and what readers should keep in mind when engaging with its content. However, in doing so, 4PE found something even more astounding: AVN is not the only media site operated by Scott Pio, former Loudoun County Republican Committee Chairman! This blog will first delve deeper into AVN’s bias before sharing the name of AVN’s sibling company. All Virginia News, Be Honest about Your Republican Handlers! AVN Claims Independence Yet There is a Clear Bias AVN markets itself as an independent, non-partisan news platform, which suggests that the site operates without bias, thereby publishing a range of news without a political bias and providing balanced reporting free from political influence or corporate interests. Independence and non-partisan perspective in journalism is crucial for public trust, especially when covering sensitive topics like education, local policy, and other news. However, the content on AVN raises questions about its non-partisan status, since the site primarily publishes content and articles that criticize school districts and Democratic politicians, often framing these subjects in a negative light. While critical reporting is a vital part of journalism, the consistent focus on one political group suggests a particular editorial agenda rather than neutral coverage. AVN's Editorial Style and Presentation The writing style on AVN is direct, but often emotionally charged. Headlines are crafted to grab attention and sometimes imply wrongdoing or controversy. The articles themselves mix factual reporting with opinionated language, which can blur the line between news and commentary. It would not be surprising to find that AI is used heavily to produce social media and content, particularly when all of the current content authors are identified as "VN Staff." AVN began its social media sites in September 2024 and began producing media products immediately. The earliest posts come from a decidedly Virginia GOP and Trumpian perspective, for example: October 15, 2024 editorial by Caleigh Weichbrodt a member of Speak Up! Fairfax, from the The Family Foundation, a group known to have extreme views on civil rights, divorce, IVF, and abortion. October 24, 2024 article about the retirement of the Thomas Jefferson High School Principal filled with invective and regurgitated GOP talking points. November 1, 2024 quote from Twitter/X by then Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance from Twitter supporting Virginia Governor Youngkin's purge of voter rolls so close to the election. Fix your graphics, Scott! The site’s design and layout also contribute to its appeal as a neutral source. It uses a reasonably clean, straightforward format that resembles traditional news outlets, which may help it gain credibility with readers. However, the lack of clear information about the site's ownership, funding sources, or editorial guidelines makes it difficult to assess its transparency. Despite operating for over two years, the website has significant errors like the strange background effects on their main page (to the right). Additionally, their graphics could clearly use an experienced graphic designer. Biased Content and Messaging To understand the site’s approach, consider a few examples of their coverage: School Board: The site frequently covers local school board issues, focusing primarily on conflict, e.g., board members who express strong opposition to current policies. This coverage can influence voter perceptions by framing minor conflicts as major battles over education, ideology, or safety. Democratic Politicians: Coverage of Democratic leaders often centers on criticism of their policies or social initiatives. The tone can be skeptical or dismissive, reinforcing a particular political viewpoint. Interestingly, there are no similar critical evaluations of Republican leaders, policies, or initiatives. Although subjects may vary widely for AVN and many of the article titles almost sound progressive, each article somehow manages to pivot from the original subject to a heavy-handed criticism of a progressive organization, person, or effort and/or regurgitates GOP or right-wing propaganda, a la Project 2025. Although subjects may vary widely for AVN and many of the article titles almost sound progressive, each article somehow manages to pivot from the original subject to a heavy-handed criticism of a progressive organization, person, or effort and/or regurgitates GOP or right-wing propaganda, a la Project 2025. For example, an early article about banned books initially presents itself as a progressive perspective about book banning quoting PEN America, "Banned Books rise 200% in U.S. Schools," but quickly pivots to declaring that PEN America is antisemitic, banned books aren't really "banned" because they can still be purchased, etc. Ultimately, the AVN article ends with quotes and perspectives from the American Enterprise Institute, a group closely aligned with Project 2025, sharing both ideology and employees. "Enthusiastically" Republican Thus, it may not surprise people to find out that the initial Northern Virginia Bureau Chief for AVN, Audrey Carpenter, is also a longtime active Loudoun GOP activist and contributor to RedVirginiaNews, (RVN), which is at least honest about its bias--referring to itself as, "The Greatest Republican Leaning Newspaper in Virginia." Ms. Carpenter has an interesting history and has "enthusiastically" declared her leaning as a loud and proud Republican (see right). Does anyone else find it interesting that Ms. Carpenter has contributed to both AVN and RVN? Could there be a connection? Read on, critical thinker. Read on. Impact on Readers and Our Community AVN Republican Propaganda Techniques on Display Interestingly, these early AVN blogs and their corresponding social media posts had few public views or online interaction. It was not until Spring 2026 that AVN social media began using a new tactic: posting short video clips with ambiguous, inflammatory language to inspire outrage among readers. Interestingly, the social media posts touch on topics that seem to be apolitical; however, in the current culture war climate, they take on a new tone, especially with tags like "caught red handed" or terms like "shocking" (see screenshot to the right). In early May 2026, AVN posted a March 19, 2026 speech by Mark Spooner, who runs the Republican blog called the Fairfax School Monitor, which works with Project 2025 operatives. They did not identify him as a Fairfax GOP member or partner, nor did they indicate that the speech was over a month old and had a corresponding blog. Nor did they indicate that Spooner has been involved in numerous attacks and lawsuits on FCPS, despite being an octogenarian with no children in FCPS. By reposting Spooner's seven week old speech, AVN generated over 114 comments and was shared 334 times, despite no fact-checking by this supposed news site. Many commenters appeared to be worried, some were inflammatory, and many demanded action, "Contact attorneys and file charges." Thus, Republican propaganda has been promoted by the supposedly neutral AVN news site. The term "Republican propaganda" is not hyperbolic: Spooner's blog was shared on the Fairfax GOP website and/or social media, as have nearly 28 of his other blogs since 2022. It is therefore quite clear that the influence of stealth Republican sites like AVN extends beyond online readership. By shaping narratives around school districts and political figures, the site can affect public opinion and local elections. Parents and community members who rely on this source may develop mistrust toward school officials or Democratic leaders, potentially leading to increased polarization and confusion about the facts of issues. It is therefore quite clear that the influence of stealth Republican sites like All Virginia News extends beyond online readership. By shaping narratives around school districts and political figures, the site can affect public opinion and local elections. This dynamic is especially important in the context of education, where community support and cooperation are vital. When news coverage emphasizes conflict and controversy, it can hinder constructive dialogue and problem-solving. Assessing Credibility and Bias of AVN Evaluating the credibility of AVN requires looking at several factors: Transparency: The site does not clearly disclose its ownership or funding, which raises questions about potential influences. Balance: Coverage tends to focus on negative stories about school districts and Democrats, with limited representation of opposing views. Sources: Articles sometimes rely on anonymous sources or unverified claims, which can undermine reliability. Fact-Checking: There is little evidence of rigorous fact-checking or corrections, which are hallmarks of responsible journalism. Readers should approach the AVN site and any unknown or new media site with caution and seek additional sources to verify information. Navigating Media Bias in Local News The case of AVN highlights a broader challenge in today’s media environment: distinguishing between supposedly unbiased, non-political journalism and outlets with hidden agendas. Being aware of All Virginia News’s political leanings is essential for anyone seeking balanced information. Here are some tips to navigate content from stealth media sites: Cross-check stories with multiple reputable sources to get a fuller picture of events Look for clear distinctions between opinion and news. Pay attention to language that signals bias, such as emotionally charged words that signal opinion rather than fact. Consider the broader context of political issues beyond the site’s coverage. Look for transparency about ownership and editorial policies. Consider a diversity of perspectives presented in and outside of coverage. By applying these practices, readers can better understand the news and avoid being misled by biased reporting and biased media sites like AVN. Who is AVN’s Sibling Media Company? Red Virginia News!! On March 23, 2026, Scott Pio lost the chairmanship of the Loudoun GOP in a contested and close race. Soon after, on April 7, 2026, AVN social media had a makeover. Then, per the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VA SCC), Scott Pio registered: AVN as a Business Entity on May 1, 2026. RVN as a Business Entity under the name “Virginia Guardian, Inc.” on April 22, 2026. RVN is run by Virginia Guardian None of this information is on the “about us” page of the two media sites. In fact, neither media site has an “about us” page. To find this out, I had to have the knowledge that business entities have to be registered on the VA SCC website, and in the case of RVN, I had to scroll down about 20 times to the bottom of the page to find the “Paid for and authorized by VirginiaGuardian.org” (see screenshot to the right) which leads to a non-existent website where one will get a 404 error. News Media should be transparent and accountable. In this case, these two media groups are hidden and driven by a former Loudoun GOP chair, who is likely using some sort of Artificial Intelligence (AI) application to aggregate newsworthy items, create engaging headlines and inflammatory descriptions, clip videos, and publish on a regular basis. Does anyone know this besides this author, Scott Pio, and those who have read 4 Public Education’s May 4th blog? Doubtful. Few have the time, resources, curiosity, and knowledge to find out who is the man behind the curtain of these two media sites. And, that should worry Virginians. The Role of Media Literacy in Today’s World Media literacy—the ability to critically analyze and evaluate media content—is more important than ever. Sites like AVN highlight the need for consumers to question the sources and motives behind the news. Media aggregation by AVN and RVN, controlled by the former Loudoun GOP chair, should also concern people, because they could be influenced without their knowledge or consent. Considering Scott Pio’s past history of far right advocacy and controversy (click on the screenshots below), this author would want to know that he is driving both AVN and RVN, two media sites getting a lot of social media traffic. Clearly, it is incumbent on individuals to develop media literacy skills to make informed decisions and engage in meaningful civic discussions–and perhaps we should expect that from each other, as well. Additionally, there are educational programs, fact-checking organizations, and public awareness campaigns that contribute to improving media literacy. Finally, encouraging friends and family to seek diverse viewpoints fosters a healthier information environment. AVN and RVN are not in and of themselves harmful to the community. In fact, the RVN website presents local Republican news with a tiny bit less hate and bias than a Daily Signal or Daily Wire, which seems to be the metric today. Therefore, if you want Republican-oriented news, RVN seems like one of the better sources, because at least it is honest about its bias as: "The Greatest Republican Leaning Newspaper in Virginia." However, even Republicans should be questioning why their news is being cohosted on the same server as a "liberal" news aggregator like AVN. They, too, should question the purpose and identity of a news aggregator, particularly one that relies so heavily on AI and is hosted with a supposedly "liberal" media site. However, even Republicans should be questioning why their news is being cohosted on the same server as a "liberal" news aggregator like AVN. They, too, should question the purpose and identity of a news aggregator. Nevertheless, it is disturbing that AVN is being presented as an independent, non-partisan media source for ALL Virginia, as if it can represent the values and present unbiased news for all Virginian when it is clearly a stealth Republican propaganda site. In this author's opinion, AVN is divisive, untrustworthy. It shapes narratives around local news, public education, and political figures, which means that AVN can affect public opinion and local elections. If parents and community members choose to rely on AVN, they will likely develop mistrust toward school officials or Democratic leaders, potentially leading to increased polarization and confusion about the facts of issues. Isn't our community polarized enough? Haven't each of us lost friends, neighbors, and family members to polarization? Deepening divides among Virginians may increase readership, but it weakens our community. stealth Republican media outlets like AVN play a role in this dynamic by reinforcing partisan perspectives that divide our Commonwealth. When they operate without transparency of motive or funding to readers, they are not operating as an ethical newspaper, but are operating as political propaganda. And none of us has time for that. Virginians deserve to know the truth about their News Media!

Public School Board Elections in 2026 Public education is a cornerstone of our democracy and is essential for healthy communities. Public school boards are designed to give citizens a direct say in local education yet often their membership is critically overlooked, Most jurisdictions in Virginia elect school board members on a regular schedule. Who is elected to those school boards is important because those boards shape the quality, direction, and accessibility of public education. This year most cities in Virginia are holding elections for school board members. Unfortunately most voters can’t identify who are the good candidates running for school board in their jurisdiction. School board candidates don’t claim a political party and have very small budgets so are not able to widely share their values with the public. And, recently, candidates who do not support public education have been winning seats on school boards. This year 4 Public Education has identified school board candidates that hold our values and believe that every child deserves to experience a welcoming, inclusive, safe, relevant, and nurturing public education. We encourage voters to consider voting for the candidates with those values, as identified in the table below on November 3, 2026. 4PE also encourages voters to be informed by conducting research on candidates by reviewing their education values, policy positions, social media posts, and endorsements.

Since 1996 Virginia (and other states) have used standards based (SOLs) annual standardized tests to measure students, teachers, and schools. And if we are honest, nobody has liked them, ever. An internet survey will yield a series of test promotion sites, but even those who most avidly promote them are acknowledging they are something of a necessary evil. Sadly, students have given up field trips, personal goals, capstone projects, and end-of-year celebrations for standardized testing. Teachers have given up student tailored instruction and five weeks of instructional time at the end of the school year as the schools buckle down to the computer administered testing. They have grimly endured being measured by 32-45 questions selected by the state and a testing company to represent the several hundred standards they are supposed to teach each year. They are increasingly measured by daily “fidelity” to those standards. Administrators have learned to cope with rankings and ratings of themselves, their schools, their staffs, and their neighborhoods based on standardized test scores of the children: All so officials at corporations, the federal government, and state capitols can check whether the dollars they spend on educating children is justified. Since 2005, Pearson has been the testing company that has managed those tests in Virginia. On July 28, 2026, the Virginia Department of Education issued a press release announcing a request for proposal for a new testing contract for Virginia that would modernize and deliver a new assessment system. Though labelled as a new assessment plan, it continues to stipulate the contract is to administer the annual SOL tests, and the state legislature has done little, beyond adding required unit testing, to shift away from SOL testing as their primary form of educational assessment and data collection. For several years under the last Virginia governor, the goal has been to develop tests that more closely align with the National Educational Assessment Program (NAEP). So this new initiative is primarily designed to replace the company (Pearson), and shift the testing to more NAEP aligned companies while keeping more demanding standards and higher cut scores brought in during the previous administration. This is even while we know raising standards and cut scores will not improve student achievement. For roughly 30 years we have nationally relied on an assessment plan that has totally failed to deliver anything more than bureaucratic convenience and statistically unreliable data. Even the NAEP acknowledges that all this testing has not improved actual learning outcomes, has not provided a richer curriculum, and has not closed the achievement gap for any higher needs group or individual students. There are also serious current indicators that creating yet another extended testing initiative will not improve learning. At the federal level, serious reduction in education support including NAEP research, and support funding to states hampers the reliability of federal sources to do test analysis or monitor state performances as formerly demanded in ESSA programs. States similarly are struggling with replacing the supports that formerly were intended to make federal demands potentially reachable. Adding to the problem, artificial intelligence is creating an unpredictable and chaotic landscape for curriculum and instructional practices. Will it take a serious effort and planning to change? Yes. But now is not the time to rely on the old adage, “we’ve always done it that way.” “The challenge will be to develop assessment systems that provide meaningful data while supporting, rather than hindering, the ultimate goal of education: preparing students for success in a rapidly changing world.” Rethinking Standardized Testing in American Schools Now is the time to change the goal of assessment from satisfying political and corporate officials to satisfying the more relevant needs of children, families, and communities.

On August 20, 2026, a significant legal decision was made in the ongoing attacks on regulations protecting students in Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). Judge Rossie D. Alston dismissed Stephanie Lundquist-Arora's lawsuit against FCPS, ruling that she lacked standing to sue. This ruling marks a critical moment for FCPS taxpayers and the community, especially those concerned about politically-motivated lawsuits and how the school system protects the civil rights of students, including transgender and gender-expansive students. Lundquist-Arora has announced plans to appeal the decision in federal court, but for now, the dismissal stands. What Does Lack of Standing Mean? In legal terms, "standing" refers to the ability of a party to demonstrate a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In other words, a plaintiff cannot suffer from imaginary or speculative harm. The judge's ruling relied heavily on precedent in the Fourth Circuit in Parents 1 where parents were determined to lack standing to sue. The judge’s dismissal means that Lundquist-Arora (mother, prolific author, and Fairfax Independent Women's Network (IWN) Chapter Lead) could not prove she was directly affected by FCPS policies or regulation 2603 in a way that would allow her to bring a lawsuit. As stated in FCPS filing on July 24, 2026 (see FCPS Brief below, 1), Plaintiff Lundquist-Arora: "Challenges a policy that does not say what she alleges and that has never been applied to her." Filed a lawsuit that "rests entirely on speculation, no any actual or imminent injury." "Cannot state any plausible claims for relief." "Constitutional claims fail because they are premised on a misreading of Regulation 2603.3 that is belied by its plain text." Judge Alston's ruling is important because it prevents lawsuits from individuals who do not have a direct stake in the matter, helping courts focus on cases where real harm or legal injury has occurred. For FCPS taxpayers, this means the school system can continue its work without being bogged down by lawsuits lacking clear legal grounds. Background of the Lawsuit On June 22, 2026, Stephanie Lundquist-Arora filed the lawsuit (Lundquist-Arora v. FCPS and Dr. Michelle C. Reid) (see Lundquist lawsuit below) in federal court (1:2026cv01768) against on behalf of her minor children against FCPS after she and America First Legal (AF Legal) threatened legal action regarding Regulation 2603.2 against FCPS in April 28, 2026 (see AF Legal letter below). The AF Legal letter claimed violation of Lundquist-Arora's "parents’ constitutional rights and violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”)" and threatened federal litigation if FCPS did not rescind the policies or establish exemptions within 21 days. After a "spirited" back and forth between her lawyers at AF Legal and FCPS from April through early June, it was clear that a lawsuit was inevitable, even though FCPS released a revised version of the Regulation 2603.3. This is the third time that Lundquist-Arora has been involved in a legal challenge to FCPS's policies protecting the civil rights of transgender and gender-expansive students (see Jane Doe v Fairfax County School Board in circuit and federal courts). During these previous lawsuits, she has steadfastly affirmed that her family's religious values are in opposition to transgender student policies and regulations in schools. For example, she "alleged that each of her children does not believe in the concepts of transgender, gender identity, or gender-expansive." (FCPS Brief, 12) "People have a fundamental right to determine who they are." - Lundquist-Arora in Coping with Gender Fluidity Lundquist-Arora 2018 In this most recent case, Lundquist-Arora affirmed that she "wants to educate her children according to her religious beliefs" (Lundquist lawsuit, 2) that conflict with the existence of transgender students, despite having written a book entitled "Coping with Gender Fluidity" which "highlights that the right to self-define is a civil right." The court found that Lundquist-Arora did not demonstrate a personal injury or direct impact from these policies. This case attracted attention because it touched on the broader national conversation about civil rights, particularly of transgender and gender expansive students, in schools. Many parents, guardians, staff, and community members have strong opinions on how schools should address these issues, especially when it comes to student privacy, safety, and inclusion. Lawsuits like this beg the question: should one parent have the right to fundamentally change a districts policies that protect the civil rights of other parents' students in public schools? Why This Ruling Matters to FCPS Taxpayers For taxpayers in Fairfax County, this ruling brings a sense of relief. Lawsuits like Lundquist-Arora’s can drain public resources, diverting funds from classrooms and essential services to legal battles. By dismissing the case, the court helps protect taxpayer money and allows FCPS to focus on education rather than litigation. Here are some key reasons why the ruling is significant: Protects public funds: Legal defenses can be costly. Avoiding unnecessary lawsuits means more money stays in the classroom. Supports school policy stability: Constant legal challenges can disrupt school operations and policy implementation. Clarifies legal boundaries: The ruling reinforces that only those directly affected by policies can bring lawsuits, reducing frivolous claims. Transgender Student Civil Rights Under Fire Transgender rights have become a central political topic in education across the country. Policies that support the human and civil rights transgender students include access to bathrooms, participation in sports, and protection from discrimination. These policies aim to create a safe and inclusive environment for all students. While the lawsuit was dismissed, threats to transgender civil rights in schools continues. FCPS remains committed to balancing the rights and needs of all students while respecting community concerns. In light of Lundquist-Arora's affiliations and authorship, it is hard to escape the fact that this lawsuit like so many other anti-trans lawsuits filed in federal court may be part of an effort by Project 2025 groups, like AF Legal and Independent Women's Forum (IWF), and affiliated organizations to try to bring a lawsuit to the Supreme court that could reduce, restrict, or eliminate the civil rights of transgender students and adults. In her own words: The United States Supreme Court is another institution that has the power to make policy at the federal level, although it has not decided any cases regarding transgender bathroom rights. In March 2017, the Supreme Court decided it would not hear Gavin Grimm's case about a Title IX violation of his right to use the men's bathroom. Grimm is a transgender man who was refused access to the boy's bathroom at his high school in Gloucester County, Virginia. Rather than deciding the case, the Supreme Court sent it back to a lower court in Virginia. May 2018, a district court in Virginia ruled that the tool had in fact violated Grimm's rights. It was a small victory, but the district court ruling did not have a federal policy consequence as would have been the case if it were adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Imagine what would happen if this case, or one like it, could make it all of the way to the Supreme Court where, in Lundquist-Arora's words, it could "have a policy consequence." When one reviews the incredible number of lawsuits from AF Legal against school districts over transgender civil rights, it seems like this has been the plan all along: to get a case, any case, to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it is the students, schools, and taxpayers who are paying the price for Project 2025's political interests in overturning Grimm v Gloucester County School Board, a case that underlies nearly all in-school protections for transgender and gender-expansive students. The plaintiff has announced plans to appeal the dismissal in federal court which will review whether the lower court correctly applied the law regarding standing. Appeals can take months or even years to resolve, and the outcome is uncertain. For FCPS taxpayers, the appeal means staying informed about potential future legal developments. However, the dismissal at this stage is a positive sign that courts are cautious about allowing lawsuits without clear legal standing. How FCPS Can Move Forward With this ruling, FCPS can focus on its core mission: educating students. At the same time, the school district must continue to address student rights, safety, and opportunity in the face of near constant threats from the federal government and politically motivated lawsuits. FCPS must represent the needs, interests, and civil rights of nearly 180,000 students, their families, and school staff. By refusing to bow to repeated political pressure from one parent and associated Project 2025 political groups, FCPS has done its duty to its community. Of course, they will need to continue to: Engage with the community via open forums and discussions which can help address concerns and build understanding. Provide clear policies, regulations, and staff training on student rights and protections to reduce confusion and conflict. Support all students to ensure a safe environment for every student which promotes better learning outcomes. Monitor legal developments by staying informed about court decisions helps FCPS adapt policies as needed. Stand up for its Community since FCPS is in the eye of the storm as a large, successful, progressive school district. Not only has it been the focus of political and legal attacks for the last six years, but it is also a primary target of the Trump Administration and its Project 2025 organizations like AF Legal and IWF. What This Means for School Communities The dismissal of this lawsuit may influence similar cases in other school districts. Courts across the country are increasingly scrutinizing who has the right to sue over school policies, especially on sensitive issues like transgender rights. This ruling reinforces the idea that plaintiffs must show direct harm to proceed. For taxpayers and school districts elsewhere, this case highlights the importance of clear legal standards and the need to protect public resources from unnecessary litigation. One can only hope that the repeat and Project litigants will get the message. This ruling marks a clear message: lawsuits must be grounded in real, personal impact to move forward. For FCPS taxpayers, it means their money is better spent on education than on defending baseless legal claims. As the appeal process unfolds, the community can stay engaged and informed, ensuring that FCPS continues to serve all students effectively and fairly.