Search Results

Updates on Politically-Motivated Lawsuits Assaults on our public schools are not just being fought just at school board meetings and by Executive Orders, but they are also being conducted through politically motivated lawsuits and investigations, many of which lack merit.  These lawsuits and associated investigations are a costly way to attack public schools. Just one politically motivated investigation by Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares generated over $1.65 million in outside legal costs for Fairfax County Public Schools  (FCPS), but that doesn’t fully calculate the cost to Virginia taxpayers.  Over the last five years, there have been hundreds of lawsuits by dark money groups against public school districts across the nation. Some, like America First Legal (AF Legal), of  Project 2025 , have focused significant energy targeting local northern Virginia school districts, in particular FCPS and Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS), often with Virginia’s AG acting as a cooperating partner . While AF Legal goes to social media to crow about their “big wins,” many of which are not really anything to crow about, it would be interesting to determine the total amount their politically motivated lawsuits have cost taxpayers in those counties. Since the Trump Administration took office in January 2025, they have focused significant energy targeting these same school districts, often in combination with AF Legal. In fact, they have used U.S. Department of Education (ED) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in many of these cases, despite firing OCR attorneys and a backlog of thousands of civil rights cases  which are not being addressed. All of this is happening while the US ED OCR is being dismantled  and their work is transferred to other divisions.  Updates on some of the most critical lawsuits against FCPS and LCPS are outlined below. However, as one reads these updates, one would wonder: How do the cases below come to the front of the line of 25,000  OCR complaints? There are 25,000 complaints , many of which involve active  and ongoing harm against students attempting to: access special education, protection from sexual harassment and abuse, and protection from retaliation. OCR has been so lax regarding these cases that their website hasn’t been updated since January 14, 2025. In the case of Loudoun and Fairfax counties, AF Legal and US ED OCR have magically managed to expedite some of the cases below in front of dozens of open civil rights cases related to restraint and seclusion, sexual violence, and disabilities. Why? Why do AF Legal clients receive red carpet treatment from Trump’s US ED?  Title IX Lawsuit against US ED by FCPS On behalf of FCPS, Superintendent Michelle Reid gave an update  on their lawsuit against the US ED concerning the school system’s policies and regulations on bathroom and locker room use based on a student’s gender identity. Oral arguments are expected in late January 2026. Previously, the ED had issued a demand that would force FCPS to discriminate against their students or put the school system at risk of losing $167 million or more in federal funding that primarily affects lower income schools and students with learning disabilities. Initially, the Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed one FCPS legal challenge but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case on appeal. Oral arguments are scheduled for late January 2026 and briefs are linked below. FCPS is just one of many public school divisions across the country that have lost federal funding due to policy disagreements with the ED.  It is important to note that this recent lawsuit ( Fairfax County School Board v. McMahon , 1:25-cv-01432) by FCPS was precipitated by an AF Legal complaint submitted on February 3, 2025  that triggered a US ED OCR investigation only nine days later. On July 25, 2025, US ED OCR  found FCPS and four other northern Virginia districts to be in violation of Title IX and made demands incompatible with FCPS’s commitment  to “fostering a safe, supportive, welcoming, and inclusive school environment for all students and staff.” Read more at these links: Message from FCPS Superintendent December 6, 2025; FCPS legal Brief in support of Appeal, October 20, 2025; , ED Response Brief   November 19, 2025 ; and FCPS Response Brief , December 5, 2025 . If you want background about the case, please see the fourth item in 4 Public Education’s recent blog . $50 FCPS Settlement Accepted by Jane Doe and AF Legal In the first week of December 2025, FCPS offered a settlement of $50 compensation and legal fees to now-graduated Jane Doe . This settlement occurred nearly two months after her legal team, AF Legal, refiled the Jane Doe v. Fairfax County School Board  ( case: 2024-03171 ) in federal court: Doe v. Fairfax County School Board  (1:25-cv-01662) . Jane Doe accepted the offer, despite the offer stipulating that FCPS did not admit fault and the settlement would not change FCPS policies regarding transgender students using pronouns, names, and bathrooms that match their gender identity.  This case has been ongoing since March 2024. 4 Public Education has been following this case, and has attended hearings which are described in these blogs:   Part 1 (July 2024) ,   Part 2 (August 2024) , and   Part 3 (December 2024) . It is unknown how much this case has cost Fairfax County taxpayers; however, FCPS made it clear that they offered the settlement to avoid a long and expensive legal effort without ceding to any of AF Legal’s demands.  Despite this relatively small financial settlement, AF Legal has declared this a “ victory ” and pushed their victory on various conservative media venues. How is it a “victory” if AF Legal did not achieve the stated goals of the lawsuit? If they failed, once again, to overturn FCPS policies that support and protect the civil rights of transgender students, it seems like a loss, right? This should lead any observer to question the intent, narrative, and actions of AF Legal. US DOJ Sues LCPS Over AF Legal Lawsuit On December 8, 2025 , Trump’s U.S. Department of Justice made a motion to intervene, and sue LCPS for “violating Equal Protection of Christian students.”  This involvement by DOJ will likely increase legal costs even greater for LCPS, Loudoun County taxpayers, and those who pay federal taxes. This case is related to S.W., et al. v. LCSB  (Cas e No. 1:25-cv-01536, East. District of VA) where the plaintiffs are represented by the   Founding Freedoms Law Center  and AF Legal. Interestingly, far right news sources and officials have presented the harassment of a transgender student as mere “discomfort” expressed by the two cisgender students, but the August 15, 2025   LCPS Title IX Investigation Determination  in the court documents demonstrated evidence of threats and long-term sex-based harassment against the transgender student by the two plaintiffs. On the surface, the case of S.W., et al v LCSB is an attempt to overturn the suspensions of the two cisgender students who allegedly committed harassment in the locker room; however, the case is ultimately challenging LCPS’s ability to enforce its own anti-discrimination policies that protect and support transgender students.  Earlier this year, AG Miyares investigated LCPS, filed a referral of the case to US ED OCR and US DOJ Civil Rights Division, and on  October 1, 2025, Miyares filed an Amicus Brief  in support of the students whose alleged harassment of a transgender student in a LCPS locker room resulted in their suspension.  After AG Miyares lost his 2025 election, it is not surprising that the DOJ is now involved. Even more significant are the relationships between AF Legal and the DOJ. At a recent Moms for Liberty event, Ian Prior, AF Legal counsel, detailed AF Legal’s connections to the current Trump administration  (e.g.,  Harmeet Dhillon , Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the US Department of Justice and  David Warrington , White House Counsel). In fact, Dhillon’s law firm has close connections to Prior, as well. These connections should concern anyone who cares about influence, accountability, and transparency in government. AF Legal Locker Room Lawsuit Turns to Conspiracy Allegations In related news, S.W., et al. v. LCSB  was amended on October 29, 2025  to include additional claims about the defendant and bizarre conspiracy allegations against a beloved local organization, Loudoun for All , a political action committee focused on social justice and equity. It seems the amended case is directly related to Loudoun for All’s press releases  about the threats and sexual harassment incidents against a transgender student associated with the Stone Bridge High School locker room incident and Title IX investigation. Of course, this is not the first time Prior, the AF Legal lawyer on the case, has targeted Loudoun for All or its members. A quick review of Loudoun news media confirms that there has been conflict for several years among the parties, which begs the question of whether this case in federal court is becoming personal, rather than just legal. Is it infringing on the free speech rights of individuals and a political organization? Abortion Scandal Allegations Awaiting Dismissal in Federal Court Less than a month after the defamation case was filed in Fairfax Circuit Court, Zenaida Perez vs. Fairfax County Public Schools, et al.  (CL-2025-0016376), it was refiled in federal court . This feels like an odd choice after Americans United for Life  held a press conference for Perez in front of the Fairfax County Circuit Court on October 29, 2025 with media , Patti Lyman (Republican National Committeewoman for Virginia), her lawyers, and Julie Perry  her friend and fellow Centreville High School teacher, present. Please read 4 Public Education’s previous coverage of the manufactured abortion scandal in FCPS Blows Apart the "Abortion Scandal."   Despite the shocking allegations by Perez, the preliminary FCPS investigation indicated that her allegations “are very likely untrue and lacking in factual or evidentiary support.” It is unknown how much the FCPS investigation  by King and Spaulding and outside legal fees have cost FCPS taxpayers thus far; however, Project 2025 contributor IWF has claimed that FCPS spent $980,515.14 on the investigation by King and Spaulding. If that is what has been spent in a two-month investigation, then this case will be quite costly. Per court filings in Perez v. Fairfax County Public Schools  (1:25-cv-02126) , FCPS has until December 16, 2025 to file a Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's opposition brief to the Motion to Dismiss is due by January 7, 2026.

By now, you’ve likely heard of the ongoing war against higher education by the Trump Administration. They’ve halted funding and attacked anything that they can label “DEI” or “liberal.” Harvard University is one of the few Ivy institutions that has held its ground by pushing back  while others, like Columbia and Brown universities, have struck deals  with the Trump Administration that involve them agreeing to make sweeping changes regarding gender, gender identity, and admissions, in addition to paying restitution to the Trump Administration in order to receive federal funding that had already been allocated by Congress. In each of these cases, the rationale for opening an investigation into the school involved claims of antisemitism due to pro-Palestinian protests on the university campuses in 2023; however, as mentioned above, the agreements with the Trump administration by both Columbia and Brown seem to focus more on gender identity and eliminating anything remotely related to “DEI” thereby affecting admissions, student and faculty supports, hiring, scholarships, and administration. The agreements seem to offer little in the way of combatting antisemitism. These attacks also have managed to pit leaders and ruling bodies of college administration against each other, as colleges typically have complicated leadership structures . Typically, leadership will include executives (e.g., president, provost, and deans); a board; and various deans, administrators, or officers in addition to many other powerful stakeholder groups. For public universities the governing authority (a.k.a., board) is appointed by the governor. Each of the attacks on these universities involved targeted efforts to force out university presidents for their support of diversity and equity initiatives.  Virginia’s esteemed universities have not avoided the onslaught of Trump interference; however, there was significant behind-the-scenes efforts by both the Trump and Youngkin administrations to unduly influence hiring, admissions, and student and faculty supports at two of the top public universities in Virginia: George Mason University (GMU) and the University of Virginia (UVA). Thus, it should not be considered a coincidence that the Trump investigations occurred simultaneously with conflict over university board appointments  at both universities. Specifically, UVA and GMU board appointees by Governor Youngkin which were rejected by the Virginia General Assembly. At GMU the vacant seats prevented a quorum for the board, so the board could not conduct business. Conspiracies and Complicity at UVA UVA is ranked in the top five public universities and about 25th overall in the nation. It has a long and storied history, since its founding in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson. It has notable graduates and incredible athletic wins. Students in and outside of Virginia strive to attend The University. Unless one is a UVA Wahoo, one may have missed the crazy happenings at UVA over the summer. In June, UVA’s community newspaper, The Cavalier Daily , offered an early look into how Trump Administration investigations by the departments of Justice (DOJ) and Education (ED) led to the resignation of beloved UVA President Jim Ryan. Ryan, concerned that remaining in his job would threaten university funding and student financial aid, made the difficult decision to resign: I am inclined to fight for what I believe in, and I believe deeply in this University. But I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job. - UVA President Jim Ryan In November, shortly after Abigail Spanberger’s gubernatorial win, a conflict between her and current Governor Glenn Youngkin reignited this story when Youngkin sharply accused Spanberger, a UVA alum, of “overreach”  and “hyperbole” in his hyperbolic letter in response to her request for a delay  in the UVA search for a new president. This opened up a laundromat of dirty laundry about what really happened leading up to Ryan’s resignation. Again, The Cavalier Daily  provided a blow-by-blow account, including President Ryan’s action-packed 12-page letter  (a must read!), as it exposes the actions of 1) Youngkin who drafted a DEI resolution for UVA’s board and then “crowed” that “DEI is dead” on Fox News; 2) former Board member (appointed by Youngkin in 2023) and current UVA Rector Rachel Sheridan who may have used undue influence on his resignation; and 3) that his resignation was part of a “supposed deal with the Trump Administration.” Earlier this year, the Virginia General Assembly rejected several Youngkin appointees to UVA and GMU, including former former Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who Senate Privileges and Elections Committee Chair Aaron Rouse (D-Virginia Beach) referred to  as ““MAGA extremists” and “Project 2025 supporters,” who are opposed to Democrats’ progressive ideals.””  Nevertheless, several universities continued to recognize  these appointees as board members; therefore, on June 9, 2025, Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax) sent a letter  to remind all of the public universities that “state code requires all governing body members to be confirmed by the General Assembly.” Since then, Youngkin and Democratic legislators have been locked in a series of legal disputes that made it all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, which denied Attorney General Jason Miyares’ appeal on behalf of Youngkin on November 17, 2025 . On December 9, 2025, Senate Democrats won an injunction against the university boards of UVA and GMU recognizing Youngkin’s appointees that had not been confirmed by the General Assembly which offers Governor-Elect Spanberger the opportunity to seat new appointees in 2026. Considering this protracted legal battle and the influence of the Board on UVA’s decisions vis-a-vis the Trump Administration’s attacks on UVA and President Ryan. In fact, Ryan has asserted that three of Younkin’s appointed UVA board members  were the real force behind his resignation, instead of the DOJ.  Photo: Vanessa Hall Investigations and Interference at GMU GMU is ranked in the top 60 public universities in the nation and number one among regional universities. It began as a branch campus of UVA in the 1950s, and became its own university in 1972. Locals have seen its transformation from a local commuter campus in the 1980s, to the research, academic, and arts powerhouse it is today.  Trump’s departments of Justice (DOJ) and Education (ED) opened at least five investigations  into GMU’s admissions and scholarship practices, antisemitism, and hiring and promotion of staff. The first federal investigation involved antisemitic discrimination on campus . Both the GMU president  and Jewish faculty  responded that the GMU community was safe and inclusive. The Jewish faculty letter  was particularly pointed, describing the investigations as “quickly intensifying under a false, racially divisive, and deeply cynical claim of combating anti-Semitism”. These investigations came fast and furious from January to August with tight deadlines, including an August 22, 2025 ED finding and list of demands  that gave GMU only 10 days response time. This list of demands included a “personal apology from GMU’s President to the University community for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes” and demanded that GMU change its website. At one point, the GMU governing board sought to negotiate with the Trump Administration to resolve the supposed issues; however, the GMU faculty senate  spoke up early and often to reject the federal efforts to stifle academic freedom. GMU faculty recognized early on that GMU President Gregory Washington was a likely target of the federal investigation and they fiercely advocated  for his position and positive record at the university. At the same time Washington protected his university faculty and students, at one point referring to the ED investigation findings as “ legal fiction .” It is entirely possible that GMU had the benefit of observing the federal attacks on UVA in real time, which enabled them to gather forces to reject federal overreach and efforts to suppress free speech and academic freedom on campus. In fact, a faculty member emphasized this point to NPR , “What’s going on at Mason is really following on the heels of what happened at the University of Virginia and the ouster of President Ryan and we are seeing a similar play.” Photo: Vanessa Hall Overreach and Opportunism by the Administration In each of these cases, the Trump Administration used antisemitism as a weapon to target the universities after pro-Palestinian campus protests. The Trump Administration’s ED targeted 60 universities  in this manner. Unfortunately, some universities, like Brown and Columbia, have caved on the very DEI policies that have made those universities appealing to faculty, students, and families while others have taken a firm stance against the government. Unfortunately, it appears that in each instance, antisemitism was a red herring, as the real targets of the Trump Administration have repeatedly been revealed to be diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and practices; antiracism; and accessibility. The Administration has done this by effectively redefining its anti-discrimination laws to, as Representative Bobby Scott , a Virginia Democrat and the ranking member on the House’s education committee, stated: Under this Administration, the government’s Office of Civil Rights has adopted a radical reinterpretation of our civil rights laws to attack diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility…. The Trump Administration’s selective actions undermine the pursuit of justice, and the independence and academic freedom of America’s institutions of higher education. - Representative Bobby Scott (VA-D) Additionally, a GMU alum stated that “Using Jewish identity as a cover for political attempts to restructure an institution is not true support, it’s instrumentalization, and ultimately, it does more harm than good.” It has been clear from the beginning, that the Trump administration was attacking academic freedom at the university level. GMU has gotten to the heart of this debate : This is a debate about who governs our universities and colleges, who belongs here, whose speech counts and whose speech is silenced, and who and what we serve.

The Trump administration has all but accomplished what the Republican Party has been trying to do for more than 40 years. Although the U.S Education Department (ED) is not totally dismantled, the Trump administration has fired most of the employees and is moving offices and responsibilities to other federal agencies, essentially an end run around the law that only Congress can abolish a Department. Although Secretary of Education McMahon is doing her best to close the ED, its elimination is far from complete .  We were warned early on that public education was in danger  if Trump was reelected. He misled the electorate  during his campaign by insisting that he shunned the conservative mandate known as Project 2025 , but since being elected he has been adopting its ideas. Barely two months into his second term he published an executive order  to close the ED, fully actualizing the proposed mission for the ED as stated on page 319 of Project 2025: Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated. - Heritage Foundation History of the ED The Republican Party’s efforts to abolish the ED began in earnest during the Reagan presidency, but Project 2025 is wrong to state that President Carter “created” the ED, since its roots are much older. The responsibility for public education was enacted in 1887 with the Congressional Act to Establish a Department of Education . The idea of forming this department originated with a resolution in 1885  to create a new government agency whose duty it would b e to “enforce education upon the population without regard t o color upon all such states that should fall below a standard to be established by Congress”. Early on, there was political wrangling about that newly established agency, and at one point it was reduced to an office within the Department of the Interior. In 1979, it was restored to full departmental status through an  Act of Congress , and the programs housed in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare formed the ED .  At present, the Trump administration is transferring most of the K-12 programs of the ED to other agencies   (e.g., departments of Interior, Health and Human Services, Labor, and State)  by way of “partnerships.”  However, with the labor reductions under DOGE, it is unknown how these departments will manage the K-12 programs and ED responsibilities. Pushback against Destruction of the ED The Trump administration has made significant progress in dismantling the ED but there is forcible pushback to stop and reverse the changes, some of which 4 Public Education outlined in a June 2025 blog, U.S. Dept of Education loses in Court and at Senate Hearings . More recently, numerous members of the U.S. Senate sent a  December 4th letter to Secretary McMahon  objecting to the changes as outrageous and illegal, and warned that the changes will jeopardize the funding and support for tens of millions of students, teachers, and families across the country. In addition, instead of reducing the “bureaucratic bloat” and “red tape” in public education alleged in the Project 2025 directives, the senators pointed out that McMahon’s changes will: "Create even more bureaucracy that states, school districts, and educational institutions across America will have to expend time and resources navigating at the expense of students and families. " By law, if an agency desires to reorganize its internal structure, it can only do so if Congress has authorized the action . The Senate letter instructed that “Congress has unambiguously authorized dozens of education programs to be administered by the Department through numerous laws and has clearly appropriated funding on a bipartisan basis for decades to the Department to carry out those programs. Appropriations law prohibits the transfer of funds to another federal agency unless expressly authorized in appropriations law, which it has not done in this case.” Nevertheless, the Trump administration has illegally developed partnerships with six other agencies and has reassigned ED responsibilities to those agencies.  Also, the twenty states that previously sued to stop the massive layoffs at the ED are now also challenging the  transfer of major functions  of the ED to other federal agencies, and the American Federation of Teachers is suing  over those same changes.  Impacts of Dismantling the ED The original mission  of the ED, established in 1877, was to protect a republican form of government from oligarchy by educating its citizens. This presents a clear counterargument to the faulty ideas that a federal education department is unnecessary . This assertion makes no sense when considering that the ED is responsible for ensuring equitable access to education and for providing federal funding and oversight to improve student achievement and global competitiveness. The ED is charged with managing student aid programs, enforcing civil rights laws, supporting innovations in education, collecting and disseminating data, and helping implement national education policy, especially for underserved groups.  The Trump administration claims that changes to ED will return power to the states and parents ; however, the original and current goal for an ED was to have a federal department to manage the differences (inequity) in the quality of public education within and among states because states are not able to do manage quality on a national level.  There is no truth to the claim in Trump’s Executive Order that his plan would return control of the schools to the states. The responsibility for K-12 public education is already primarily a state and local fiscal responsibility and the Federal financial contribution to elementary and secondary education is only about 8 percent. Finally, it is the state, not the Federal government, that is responsible for  curriculum development  and local policies in the school system. There is a concern that the critical functions assigned to the ED by Congress are in jeopardy. The Senate letter to Secretary McMahon expressed concern that the ED has spun off responsibilities “to other agencies that lack the expertise, capacity, and legal mandate to successfully administer key programs”. The senators  objected to the serious and negative consequences already plaguing the early interagency agreements (IAAs).  The NEA warned  early in Trump's second term that his plans for “Stripping the department of its resources and mission would be catastrophic for the millions of students in low-income communities who need educational services and support. Civil rights protections against discrimination based on race, gender, and disability would also be gutted.” Shortly thereafter the NEA released its forecast that dismantling the ED will result in:  “Larger class sizes and less support for students and educators. Lower income students and their families in rural, suburban, and urban communities in every part of the country would lose needed funding. Students and families who receive support to attend college and vocational schools could lose Pell Grants or federal student loans, leading to more students dropping out, fewer choices, and less options for families. Students with disabilities and their families would lose the support they need at school and at home. Students with disabilities and lower-income students and their families would lose access to Upward Bound, TRIO and other programs that encourage them to participate in higher education. Cuts to afterschool and summer programs will undo the progress educators make with tutoring, reductions in chronic absenteeism, and providing skill-building programs.” Another major concern is about the dismantling of ED’s research division, which provides information that is not available from any other source and is needed by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to inform their decision making. In an analysis by the NEA , it was concluded that:  The administration canceled sweeping and impactful education research grants and cut most of the staff, with very few analysts left to conduct research that schools, policy makers, and the public rely upon. Without the research and data analysts to provide it, updated numbers required for formula funding for Title I schools hangs in the balance. Rather than reducing waste, experts say the cuts will create it. - National Education Association How fitting is it that the current attempts to damage democracy should so vigorously attack the ED? Consequently, it seems appropriate that people are taking to the Congressional offices, State Houses, and the streets to fight for our right to quality, equitable, 21st Century public schools. If you would like to learn more about changes to the ED during the Trump Administration, 4 Public Education has several blogs to help bring you up to date on the full range of changes to mission, funding, and regulations of the ED. US Dept of Education Threatens Northern Virginia School Districts  By Vanessa Hall 7/31/25 Federal Shorts: U.S. Dept of Education loses in Court and at Senate Hearings  By Marianne Burke and Vanessa Hall 6/4/25 Contact Your Legislators And Say "NO" to the Newest Voucher Scheme  By Marianne Burke 5/12/25 U.S. Dept of Education Demands "anti-DEI" Certification in Exchange for Student Funding  By Vanessa Hall 5/1/25 Scrambling Public Education: What Will Happen in the Next 100 Days?  By Vanessa Hall 4/3/25 Demanding the Impossible: Eliminating DEI in Public Education  By Cheryl Binkley 4/18/25 Federal Scene on Education is at a Turning Point: The Dismantling of U.S. ED  By Cheryl Binkley 4/8/25 Trump's Education Appointee has no IDEA about Public Education  By Vanessa Hall 3/12/25 Eliminating the US Department of Education will do more Damage than You Realize  By Marianne Burke 2/13/25 Wrestling the Dept of Education from Incompetence : McMahon’s Senate Hearings  By Cheryl Binkley 2/12/25 Executive Orders: A Real and Presidential Danger to Public Education  By Vanessa Hall 2/6/25 Trump's Dept of Edu-Propaganda  By Vanessa Hall 1/28/25

How Cozy is Virginia's Attorney General with the Trump Administration and Project 2025? Two weeks ago, I pondered whether our Attorney General, Jason Miyares, was acting as the Trump administration’s errand boy , ensuring that Trump Executive Orders are followed, even if they conflict with the rule of law, US Constitution, and Congressional authority. AG Miyares and Governor Youngkin have deep connections with the Trump Administration, and to various Project 2025 groups, who seem to be cooperating together to fulfill Project 2025’s anti-public school and anti-LGBTQIA agenda.  This concept was confirmed after I attended the Moms for Liberty Town Hall on October 3, 2025, where I learned that a number of the panelists were beneficiaries of amicus briefs  and other legal support by AG Miyares. Was he acting in his duty to Virginia citizens or for a darker purpose? What is an Amicus Brief? An amicus brief is submitted by a party, known as an amicus curae  (a.k.a., “friend of the court) that has interest in the outcome of a legal case in order to offer their views on the case. Attorney Generals may write or offer  to sign on to an amicus brief when the case could impact their jurisdiction. In some cases, these briefs may merely be submissions of comments on federal or state rule-making. Essentially, AGs offer amicus briefs when the case has broad public or legal consequences, to advocate for the public on specific legal positions or outcomes, and to bring their specific expertise. Therefore, an AG should not file amicus briefs for private law firms because:  An AG’s primary duties are to the state and the citizens. There could be a conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety when the AG is supposed to be impartial and advocate for the public good. Amicus briefs are to provide information to the court not serve as a form of “legal assistance” for legal firms. Ultimately, AGs are legal officers  whose job is to “the interests of their clients—the states—and in many cases those interests will be grounded in state laws and policies.”  When I posed the question to Google AI: “ Is it normal for an attorney general to do amicus briefs for private law firms? ” I received the following response: No, it's not normal or appropriate for an Attorney General (AG) to directly do amicus briefs for private law firms; rather, AGs file their own amicus briefs to advocate for the public interest or their state's specific interests in cases that have broad public consequences, often in response to requests from interest groups or agencies, not individual law firms. While private law firms also file amicus briefs, their purpose is to offer unique expertise or perspectives, which differs from an AG's role as the chief law officer for the state. AG Miyares Represented the Interests of Moms for Liberty Panelists and Project 2025 Over the last four years, a significant number of AG Miyares’ education-focused briefs were written in support of groups, individuals, and organizations who have supported his and Youngkin’s 2021 gubernatorial campaigns, and/or are currently supporting his campaign for reelection. Of course, many of these groups, such as America First Legal (AF Legal), were also directly involved in producing Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership . After watching the Moms for Liberty Town Hall on October 3, 2025, I realized that every litigant or lawyer  on the Mom’s for Liberty panels had received amicus brief  support from AG Miyares on cases in the courts in 2025. There is no way that can be a coincidence?! What seemed even weirder is that nearly all of the cases concerned transgender civil rights which are codified in the Virginia Human Rights Act  (HRA). The HRA requires that Virginia: Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions. This means that AG Miyares as Attorney General is required to uphold the law of the Commonwealth for the transgender community, yet he repeatedly focused his amicus briefs on cases challenging Virginia law and undermining the civil rights guaranteed to transgender students in public schools. Why is AG Miyares so focused on such a small and vulnerable group and writing amicus briefs against the laws of Virginia? How much has this cost taxpayers? What is AF Legal's role in AG Miyares’ actions? Who is America First Legal? Founded in 2021 by Stephen Miller, Trump’s current Deputy Chief of Staff, AF Legal is a “ right-wing litigation operation .” As Axios noted , “Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is setting policy from inside the White House, but [AF Legal which is] a legal group he co-founded is shaping policy from the outside, through legal complaints and lawsuits against corporations and even the Trump administration itself.” Axios calls AF Legal the “private enforcement arm of the White House's assault on DEI — or as it has billed itself, a right-wing version of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).” Although AF Legal is a tax exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit, it had over $44 million in revenue in 2022 , its second year of existence. Also it pays its top employees and officers quite well. In  2023, AF Legal’s VP earned $290,000 and Prior $217,000 .  Unlike the ACLU which is a non-profit, non-partisan civil rights organization that defends constitutional civil rights for all, AF Legal acts as the antithesis of the ACLU  in that it operates in support of conservative values. Where the ACLU fights for civil rights for underrepresented and vulnerable populations, AF Legal primarily focuses on the perceived oppression of white , Christian, male, cisgender, heterosexual population, filing lawsuits against governmental bodies and private businesses over perceived civil rights violations. Per Matt Cohen of the Democracy Docket , AF Legal has attacked voting rights and “made good on their promise to wage a legal war against all things progressive: the group has filed dozens of legal actions against “woke corporations,” civil rights, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights and just about any other cause championed by the left.”  In many ways, AF Legal almost acts as a pro bono law firm, except that its revenues come from unknown sources such as Leonard Leo’s Donors Trust, The Bradley Impact Fund (over $27 million ), and Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund (over $5 million ), etc. This kind of murky funding is called “dark money” where political spending is intended to influence the voter, public policy, or public information yet the source of the money is not transparent or obvious. Project 2025 Cases Receiving Personal Attention by AG Miyares   AG Miyares involved himself and/or wrote Amicus Briefs for each of these five active 2025 lawsuits involving Moms for Liberty panelists. The only consistent matter is that all but one of the cases concerns transgender student rights and involves AF Legal, specifically Prior, as a pro bono lawyer. In general, the cases argue that freedom of speech and religion trump the rights of transgender students to their pronouns, access to bathrooms and locker rooms, and ability to play sports. In each case, minor children are being pitted against other minor children, mostly in anti-transgender culture war issues. The cases will be discussed below based on their key subject matter in order of filing. All but one are challenges to school districts’ transgender policies.  1) Exclude Trans Girls from Sports During the Moms for Liberty Town Hall, Prior (AF Legal) specifically mentioned West Virginia v. B.P.J.  as a case to watch in the U.S. Supreme Court  concerning the state's "Save Women's Sports Act" banning transgender girls from sports teams. Wouldn’t you know, but AG Miyares joined the charge  against transgender athletes on an amicus brief  in this case? In 2024, he and 25 other AGs asked the Supreme Court to take up West Virginia’s appeal of a lower court  ruling against the anti-trans “Save Women’s Sports Act.” It is unknown how much Miyares’ involvement in this case has cost Virginia taxpayers. 2) Target Anti-Discrimination Policies and Exclude Bathroom Access In Jane Doe v. Fairfax County School Board  (case: 2024-03171), panelist Lundquist-Arora (Independent Women’s Forum and Network) was represented by AF Legal. The Jane Doe  case contended that Fairfax County Public Schools ( FCPS) anti-discrimination policies  regarding the rights of transgender students (i.e., use of pronouns and name) and transgender student access to bathrooms violated the religious liberty rights of a high school senior, Jane Doe. Because Jane Doe graduated in June 2024, Lundquist-Arora’s children were added to the suit in the Summer of 2024. FCPS repeatedly moved to have the case dismissed because the students involved were never disciplined and damages were undefined.  In June 2024, Miyares   filed an Amicus Brief  in support of AF Legal’s case . The Jane Doe v. FCSB was nonsuited this summer in order to bring the case to federal court. Feel free to read 4 Public Education’s coverage of of Jane Doe v FCSB in the following blogs which also contain some of the filings: Part 1 (July 2024) , Part 2 (August 2024) , and Part 3 (December 2024) . It is unknown how much this litigation has cost FCPS in outside legal fees, or how much Miyares’ involvement has cost Virginia taxpayers. 3) Viewpoint Discrimination Platt, et al v Loudoun County School Board (LCSB)  Case No. 1:24-cv-1873 Eastern Dist. of Virginia) was filed in late October 2024 by AF Legal on behalf of the parents, including Anne Miller  who was on an October 3, 2025 Moms for Liberty panel. The lawsuit concerned the issue that public input was cut short at an October 3, 2024 LCSB meeting when speakers repeatedly tried to discuss a specific student with alleged gang ties who may or may not have been in Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS). At the time, as the Washington Post  noted “School Board Chair Melinda Mansfield reminded the speakers about the board’s policies for public comment decorum, which prohibits speakers from targeting individual students. After multiple warnings, Mansfield ended the public comment period. Several people who were signed up to speak were not able to.” To anyone who regularly attends school board meetings, this seems like an obvious case of “you broke the rules, so you suffer the consequences,” but somehow these Loudoun County citizens managed to get a free lawyer (AF Legal), filed a case, and within months they got an Amicus Brief  from AG Miyares.  AG Miyares argued that the LCSB actions to end public input at a LCSB meeting “constituted classic viewpoint discrimination, where speech is censored solely because officials disagree with its content in direct violation of the First Amendment.” AG Miyares has used “viewpoint discrimination” as a point in other amicus briefs against transgender student civil rights. It is unknown how much this litigation has cost LCPS in outside legal fees, or how much Miyares’ involvement has cost Virginia taxpayers. 4) Challenge School Districts’ Anti-Discrimination Policy and Exclude Bathroom Access Shortly after the Trump Administration took office, AF Legal submitted a complaint on February 3, 2025  that five Northern Virginia school districts (Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, and Prince William County) were violating Title IX according to the “principles” (a.k.a. Anti-trans ideology) of Trump’s Executive Order (EO) “Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.”  Based on the evidence, AF Legal’s involvement seems to have triggered and fast-tracked federal enforcement. This is unusual because AF Legal’s complaint was not  on behalf of any individual students in these school systems which contain a combined total of over 375,000 students. Nevertheless, the US Department of Education (ED) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued a Notification Letter nine days later to FCPS indicating that a complaint had been filed.  On September 25, 2025, Miyares filed amicus briefs  to deny emergency requests for injunctions by FCPS and Arlington Public Schools (APS). Miyares demonstrated his support for the federal overreach by the US ED and violation of student civil rights by this statement: The policies in Fairfax and Arlington allowing students to use restrooms and locker rooms based on subjective gender identity instead of biological sex are unlawful, unsafe, and indefensible. The Fourth Circuit should deny the schools’ attempt to rewrite the law through litigation. - AG Miyares Click to Learn More FCPS and other school districts are still in litigation regarding this matter. See their August 29, 2025 complaint  which contains key history, legal precedent, civil rights support, and various supporting documents related to US ED’s actions against the five school districts. It is unknown how much this litigation has cost FCPS, APS, and the other three school districts in outside legal fees, or how much Miyares’ involvement has cost Virginia taxpayers; however, it is expected that this will be quite costly as it moves through the courts. 5) Challenge School District’s Anti-Discrimination Policy and Exclude Locker Room Access In S.W ., et al. v. LCSB  (Cas e No. 1:25-cv-01536, East. District of VA), involves a complicated case of sexual harassment in an LCPS locker room in March 2025 and was reported to LCPS on March 21, 2025, including: A threatening statement prompted the report however, the Complainant replied that other harassing statements had occurred with frequency throughout the school year in the locker room prior to the students' shared physical education (PE) class. Based on news reports, a transgender boy documented harassment by cisgender boys in the locker room, as proof that the harassment had occurred, including allegations that the cis-students made the following comments (in loud voices) about the trans-student over many months, including calling him a “boy-girl” and “It” and threatening to “beat [their] ass.” The Founding Freedoms Law Center  and AF Legal are representing the Loudoun County boys pro bono  against the civil rights of all students. Founding Freedoms is the legal arm of the Richmond-based Family Foundation of Virginia, a known anti-LGBTQIA extremist group .  Interestingly, WJLA, AF Legal, and AG Miyares have presented this harassment as mere “discomfort” expressed by the two cisgender students, but the August 15, 2025 LCPS Title IX Investigation Determination in the court documents shows otherwise. In August 2025, LCPS completed a detailed 24-page Title IX investigation report that found that a preponderance of evidence found a violation of Title IX rights of the transgender student. Ultimately, both the transgender and cisgender students were suspended. The transgender student was found to have violated Policy 8655  for recording in the locker room, and the cisgender students were found to have violated the Title IX rights of the transgender student. On the surface, the case of S.W., et al v LCSB  is an attempt to overturn the suspensions of the two cisgender students who allegedly committed harassment in the locker room; however, the case is ultimately challenging LCPS’s ability to enforce its own anti-discrimination policies that protect and support transgender students. Additionally, the case seems to try to codify that Title IX does not cover transgender students, to align with multiple Trump Executive Orders permitting discrimination against transgender people , versus current Title IX regulations passed by the Biden Administration. One could even wonder if this is intended to be a shortcut to change Title IX before the Trump Administration took the time to review, accept public comment, and change the actual Title IX regulations, which is a lengthy process. What is most shocking is AG Miyares’ involvement in this case. He intervened on multiple levels, including submitting this case to the US ED, which, despite firing over 25% of its employees and nearly half of the US ED Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in March 2025 , found the time to fast track actions against LCPS. AG Miyares’ involvement included but was not limited to: In early May 2025, AG Miyares began an investigation  of LCPS actions. On June 2, 2025 he reported that he found “significant concerns regarding potential violations of Title IX, unlawful retaliation, and viewpoint discrimination,” and that “that LCPS initiated a retaliatory Title IX investigation” into the cisgender students at Stone Bridge High School. On June 2, 2025, AG Miyares referred the matter of LCPS and LCSB actions to the US ED OCR and US DOJ Civil Rights Division. On October 1, 2025, Miyares filed an Amicus Brief  in support of the students whose alleged harassment of a transgender student in a LCPS locker room resulted in their suspension.  On September 16, 2025, US ED concluded  that LCPS “violated Title IX and retaliated against male students amid sexual harassment claims.” Unfortunately, the US ED conclusions outlined are rooted in anti-trans ideology, violate the civil rights of the transgender student, and deviate significantly from the facts of the case based on the August 15, 2025 24-page LCPS Title IX investigation . Additionally, the US ED gave LCPS “ten days to voluntarily enter the Department’s Resolution Agreement” which would effectively gut LCPS’s anti-discrimination policy. This case is ongoing. Not only did AG Miyares refer this case to Trump’s US ED, but he also wrote an Amicus Brief. This is a significant level of involvement on an issue over two students, and seems more like a sincere attempt to overturn Policy 8040  than to support the more than 80,000 LCPS students enrolled in 100 schools . It is unknown how much this litigation has cost LCPS in outside legal fees, or how much Miyares’ involvement has cost Virginia taxpayers. Do We Know Who AG Miyares Serves? 4 Public Education has already noted that many of AG Miyares’ briefs and investigations may have been directed by private actors over public interests . Even a glance at AG Miyares’ involvement in education lawsuits over his four year tenure, particularly his cozy relationship with Project 2025 author AF Legal, would raise serious concerns about partisanship, misuse of public resources, conflicts of interest, and transparency. When AG Miyares’ tenure is reviewed in the future, it is likely that it will not be viewed as effective and accountable to all Virginians or that it followed the current code of Virginia when it comes to public education and civil rights. It would not be surprising if future analyses will find even more connections among AG Miyares, AF Legal, and the Trump Administration. Those findings could result in more litigation that will cost Virginians even more money. In the meantime, Virginians, especially LGBTQIA Virginians, will continue to lose civil rights. Click to discover whether AG Miyares prioritizes political agendas over Virginians' civil rights

Did the Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Denigrate and Misrepresent Student Learning for Political Advantage? Despite being in office for the past four years, gubernatorial candidate Winsome Earle-Sears continues to present a flawed analysis of Virginia’s student achievement. She claims, as does the sitting Governor Youngkin, that previous administrations claimed students were learning when they were not, and passed students when they should not have. Both Earle-Sears and Youngkin refer to this as an “honesty gap.” Although for years they have been cautioned that those statements were invalid , both the current governor and lieutenant governor continue to use those claims in an apparent attempt to influence voters.  A major concern is that the administration’s inaccurate portrayal of Virginia’s public school system was used to justify the unnecessary overhaul of the Department of Education’s (VDOE) accountability system.  Essentially, the Youngkin administration created a fake problem which required an expensive and unnecessary solution. The fake problem was that Virginia’s student performance was lacking, but this “problem” was caused by the Youngkin administration comparing the wrong statistics from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) and the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) Tests (explained in sections below). Thus, the Youngkin administration reported that Virginia had been overestimating student performance and he accused the previous democratic administrations of creating an ‘honesty gap’ . He used this “honesty gap” as the impetus to overhaul the accountability system, which has been expensive and disruptive for Virginia school districts. At a recent Moms for Liberty Town Hall panel discussion of GOP candidates, Katie Gorka, Chair of the Fairfax GOP committee despaired that only 31% of 4th grade (and similarly, 29% of 8th grade students) could read with “proficiency” (i.e., above  grade level). In fact, the figures Gorka, the Youngkin administration, and candidate Earle-Sears should have used are 58%  and 66%,  respectively, which means that Virginia’s 4th and 8th graders are well above the state national average in Reading at  grade level. Correspondingly, 76%  and 63%  Virginia’s 4th and 8th graders (respectively) are at grade level in Math. In the following sections below 4 Public Education will explain how the Youngkin administration and Earle-Sears came to use the wrong statistics. Despite published warnings about their error, the Youngkin administration and Earle-Sears continue to ignore those warnings.  What is the Difference Between the NAEP and SOL Tests? The Youngkin administration and Earle-Sears conflate both data and the purpose of the SOL and NAEP tests. As  explained by Andrew Ho, professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education , the NAEP is a “low stakes” test that monitors groups (i.e., the states), not individuals. On the other hand, tests like Virginia’s SOL are “high stakes” tests, because they contribute to decisions about school certification and which students need additional help (figure 1). Direct comparisons of statistics of the two tests are not valid because the tests differ in who  and how  they test, and how the results should be interpreted and applied.  Figure 1. The four types of educational tests and their purposes, from Ho (2022) Perhaps even more importantly, the Youngkin Administration and Earle-Sears not only made the egregious mistake of conflating terms used to compare results in the two tests, they then used their erroneous interpretation to cast aspersions  on the achievement of students and performance of teachers in Virginia’s public schools! Apparently, they assumed the term “proficient” had the same meaning in both the NAEP and SOL test results, despite abundant literature that explained how the statistical terms that have the same name also have different meanings in the two tests.  The Youngkin Administration first published the error in 2022 when Youngkin’s Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) released a report on student achievement  which made the incorrect claims that the SOL tests were overestimating performance of Virginia students. The VDOE claimed that more students should have failed because a greater proportion of students were classified as “proficient" in SOL tests results than in NAEP  tests results.  Shortly thereafter the Washington Post  explained the errors the Youngkin Administration made in their VDOE analysis, and further clarification was published by the Public Broadcasting System . Both publications explained that, although the NAEP and SOL tests use the same terms to categorize scores, the meaning of those categories differed greatly between tests. It was clear that direct comparisons of categories with the same name were not valid. But in the years since then the administration continues to use the same flawed reasoning  which undercounts Virginia schools’ performance in both Math and Reading The NAEP assessment sorts student scores into three achievement levels — basic, proficient, and advanced, which have different meanings than the SOL achievement levels despite the same names. The federal test makers who designed NAEP use “proficient” as a desirable or “aspirational” standard, while their “basic” category more closely correlates to achievement at a grade level. In fact, a multiple year   comparison of NAEP and state tests  revealed that “ most state standards for both grades [4 and 8] and both subjects [Math and Reading] mapped [achievement at grade level] at the NAEP Basic  achievement level” (Figure 2). As a result, the proportion of students performing at grade level should include students with scores in either the Basic or Proficient NAEP levels. Thus, the correct statistics are that  58% of 4th graders  and 66% of 8th graders  of Virginia students read at grade level in 2024, not the 31% and 29% figures used by the Youngin administration, VBOE, and candidate Earle-Sears.  Figure 2. The NAEP mapping study showed that “most state standards for both grades [4 and 8] and both subjects [Math and Reading] mapped at the NAEP Basic achievement level.” National Center for Education  Earl-Sears is Misrepresenting Virginia’s Performance It is concerning that Candidate Winsome Earl-Sears promises that if she is elected she will “peg the SOL scores to the NAEP scores” for Virginia for two reasons. First, this is pretty much what has already been approved for this year’s overhaul of the VBOE accountability system. The NAEP test is not designed to evaluate an individual student’s performance in a subject. Instead, the NAEP is designed to monitor learning across states, and to show where each state is ranked relative to the national average, primarily for reading and math. NAEP scores capture “two-year snapshots” of a small subset of students, and it is never the same group of students . As a result a high amount of variation among years should be expected.  In 2023, 4 Public Education again pointed out how Governor Youngkin was   incorrectly interpreting NAEP scores and how  his interpretation did not support his claim of an “honesty gap” . Yet his Lieutenant Governor Earle-Sears continues to share the misinformation. She should know better. She served on Virginia’s Board of Education; therefore, it is hard to believe that she doesn’t know the difference between the NAEP and SOL performance statistics.  Why is she conflating the NAEP and the SOL scores? Is it because Earl- Sears, like Youngkin, finds this line of fearmongering a politically expedient attempt to convince Virginians that our public schools are failing? Is this to help push the state toward privatization of public schools? Or is it just to win an election? We need to remember that NAEP proficient scores are “ aspirational ”  and a “flawed benchmark ” and that “ not a single nation can demonstrate that not even 50 percent of its students can clear the proficiency benchmark in  fourth-grade reading ”. It is essential that the next gubernatorial administration in Virginia better understand the intricacies and appropriate application of data from these two very different testing methods. They must be accountable to Virginians and accurately report what the NAEP and SOL scores indicate about our public schools and Virginia students.  The bottom line is that in contrast to what the GOP candidates are claiming in the 2025 gubernatorial campaign, the majority of Virginia students are learning appropriately and students in Virginia continue to do better than students in most other states. Virginia students score in the 4th quartile for 4th grade Math and 3rd quartile for 4th grade Math, 8th grade Reading, and 8th grade Math. Wasteful spending based on politically motivated misleading claims is the opposite of what is needed.

Preliminary Investigations Reveal Truths about Outlandish "October Surprise" from the Republican Party You either live under a rock, or you are really good at filtering out the fake news of MAGA Times outlets, if you haven’t heard about the supposed “abortion scandal” at Centreville High School in Fairfax County Virginia. It was the perfect “October Surprise”  except that it began on August 5, 2025, and created chaos in Fairfax County before school had even started.  For over ten weeks, only an outlandish story told by right-wing media was known until Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) published  their preliminary investigation last Thursday, which was in response to demands by the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Education  and U.S. Senator Billy Cassidy . There is no word yet from the Youngkin Administration about their State Police investigation which began on August 14, 2025 . Last Thursday, October 16, 2025, Dr. Michelle Reid, Superintendent of FCPS, released the preliminary findings of the abortion allegations related to Centreville High School (HS). Her letter to the community  included links to the outside investigation performed by King & Spaulding, a highly regarded “top-tier” law firm  in Washington, DC. Next week, we will use the 61-page investigation  to correct the lurid stories released by an Ohio blogger ( Walter Curt ) and Fox/Fairfax Times reporter ( Asra Nomani ), as reported to them by Zenaida Perez, an ESOL teacher at Centreville HS.  Thankfully, the thorough, preliminary investigation  found that “based on fact-finding, it appears that the allegations are untrue.” In addition, King and Spaulding  found the “shocking” allegations by Perez, Curt , and Nomani  that “FCPS procured and paid for minor abortions without parent consent, are very likely untrue and lacking in factual or evidentiary support.” In summary, King and Spaulding’s report  finds: The evidence we have reviewed indicates that Mrs. Diaz and Mr. Lehman acted appropriately and consistent with FCPS policies and regulations and with applicable federal and state laws. Mrs. Perez’s allegations appear to be rooted in speculation. It also appears that in her zeal to prove her suspicions true, Mrs. Perez procured statements from students that were false. In doing so, Mrs. Perez, among other things, violated policies and regulations that require teachers to maintain professional boundaries with students. The two student statements procured by Mrs. Perez to support her claims both appear to be unreliable and are contradicted by other evidence, including Mrs. Perez’s own contradictory admissions and recent statements by one of the former CHS students in question…. There is also evidence suggesting that Mrs. Perez manipulated both statements to convey factual assertions she knew to be untrue, and that did not reflect the students’ actual knowledge or beliefs. Will this October Surprise Backfire for Republicans? It is interesting that this Republican “October Surprise” backfired so spectacularly, after the success of so many “surprises” over the last four years. Fortunately, it was clear to most people that this outlandish story was intended to influence the 2025 gubernatorial election by somehow connecting the democratic candidates to lurid details of “abortions facilitated” by public school staff in Virginia. Nevertheless, this story has been used repeatedly against the Democratic candidates. These seemingly false claims caused significant harm to many, including unrelated students and staff at Centreville HS. These students have been subject to filming by at least one known extremist group, Tradition Family Property (TFP) Student Action , who were identified by the red capes they wear. TFP Student Action is the campus outreach component of “The American TFP” which has been  cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a hate group for their “virulently anti-LGBT” views .   In fact, a teacher asked that the Fairfax County School Board  review their policies about filming students on school grounds due to concerns over recent filming of minors by TFP Action or their allies . She indicated that this group comes to protest at high schools around Fairfax County, which is a concern to many parents, guardians, and staff because it endangers the students and their safety. Additionally, there is potentially great harm done to all of the FCPS staff and leadership targeted by these claims, especially those named by Nomani in her reporting. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of social media posts threatening prison sentences and worse to innocent people involved in these likely untrue allegations, from Dr. Reid to the Centreville HS principal and social worker named in the allegations.  Also, the legal fees incurred by FCPS have been costly, and these funds will need to come from an already highly stretched budget. As we know from previous “scandals” like the National Merit Commended Certificate “scandal” that also involved Nomani and AG Miyares, the outside legal costs for FCPS were in excess of $1.6 million .  There are many who have been harmed by the sensationalism surrounding the sensational allegations by Perez, Curt, and Nomani, including the students directly involved, most of whom are immigrants and many of whom lack parental guardianship or housing. These students were drawn into this “scandal” without their consent, and (per the report) with some coercion.  Ultimately, the investigation found that the social worker targeted by Perez was irreparably harmed by the likely false accusations, which include accusations of criminal acts! She deserves support from the community and compensation for all of the harm done to her and her family: “Sadly, for all concerned, Mrs. Perez has not allowed the limits of her factual knowledge to hold her back. Based on assumptions and guesses, she has falsely and very publicly accused Carolina Diaz of criminal acts, causing Mrs. Diaz great emotional distress, interrupting her career, forcing her to incur significant personal legal expenses, subjecting Diaz and her family to threats, and harming many others in the process.” - King and Spaulding report, page 24 This is not the last we will hear of this story. Let’s just hope that more people are not harmed by this kind of faulty reporting and retaliatory actions.  4 Public Education will analyze the failures of the original reports about the Centreville HS “abortion scandal” next week. We are looking forward to showing you what we found.

Moms for Liberty Political Panel (credit: Vanessa Hall) Moms for Liberty Town Hall in Fairfax City, October 2025 I’m still questioning my life choices, but I attended the Moms for Liberty (M4L) Town Hall on Friday, October 3, 2025, and I survived. The event didn’t disappoint, but there were some surprises along the way.  Let's start with the pleasant surprises It was a well-run event, with professional greeters and a high-level of security, likely since the sitting Lieutenant Governor and her running mate were attending. Pre-registration was required, and we were required to wear visible M4L stickers. I ripped off the M4L on my sticker. Why would I wear the name of a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) defined extremist hate group  on my sweater if I don’t want my kids to wear confederate symbols of their high school. Which parents are given a voice by Moms for Liberty? (credit: Vanessa Hall) There were so  many high-level M4L “celebrities ” in attendance: Tina Descovich (CEO and Founder), Jamie Hinkle (Coalition Coordinator), Katie Gorka (Advisor), Scarlett Johnson (Wisconsin chair). The event must have exceeded more than $50,000 in travel and production costs for only about 150 local attendees. I was particularly taken with one speaker , who gave a moving speech about autism and autistic children, which must have been hard in front of a crowd that often expresses negative views about kids with learning disabilities, much less in front of a crowd that on the whole believes that autism is caused by vaccines.  Tina Descovich, M4L cofounder and CEO, was surprisingly congenial as she introduced and facilitated the panels. She channeled empathy instead of the wild-eyed indignation that I expected. I was surprised by her approach since it was in opposition with the only other position on empathy I’ve heard from M4L, as previously shared by another headliner, Merianne Jensen . Perhaps empathy is acceptable within M4L, and only condemned when it is used for children and families outside of their patriotic embrace? Merianne Jensen, Prince William County Moms for Liberty, is upset that her kids' school teaches empathy. Of course, there were quite a few unpleasant surprises Despite being billed as “essential conversation about protecting parental rights and putting students FIRST,” students and parent’s rights took a backseat to partisan politicking. Call me naive, but I thought that a 501(c)(4) organization  should at least attempt  to have the appearance of nonpartisanship, but that was not the case.  Both Earle-Sears and Reid used their time to attack their opponents. Earle-Sears repeated allegations that her opponent, Abigail Spanberger, was “ soft on crime ,” which is odd since Spanberger was in law enforcement and received the police benevolent association endorsement for Governor. Reid claimed  that his opponent, Ghazala Hashmi, was the leader of “everything that is a problem” in Virginia schools. That seemed like a wild statement because Hashmi is an educator  and Chair of the Senate Education and Health Committee, where she has championed bills to increase support and funding for educators, English Language Learners, and students with disabilities. I’ve seen her oppose the culture wars of the Youngkin administration  when she stood up for parents, teachers, and students. Clearly, this was a campaign event for GOP candidates Earle-Sears and Reid, but it was also intended to bring M4L and Turning Point USA to Northern Virginia, especially Fairfax County:  Katie Gorka, Chair of the Fairfax GOP , begged the room for a volunteer to chair a Fairfax County chapter of M4L. Interestingly, the reason there is no M4L chapter in Fairfax County is because Gorka, M4L, and IWF kyboshed the chapter that a local mom started in 2022 . Personally, I’m not unhappy about the result, because I’ve seen what the Prince William County M4L chapter did to our Fairfax County students  when they snuck into a kids’ discord group in order to undermine LGBTQIA activism by students, thereby exposing them to danger and threats.  Emery Seigler,  Turning Point USA Club America Capitol Field Representative, invited students to start a chapter at their high schools. Her entreaty was repeated constantly throughout the event…along with complaints about barriers to finding sponsors.  Ian Prior , Senior Advisor of America First Legal , was on the political panel with Earle-Sears and Reid. He was hailed as some kind of savior to M4L parents in the room. He outlined his legal cases against school districts and connections to the current Trump administration  (e.g., Harmeet Dhillon , Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the US Department of Justice and David Warrington , White House Counsel), which should concern anyone who cares about influence, accountability, and transparency in government. As a citizen who advocates for civil rights in our schools, I’m concerned about his connections, because he may choose to wield them against me and mine at any time. The Town Hall was a constant airing of grievances where M4L described how “our children and parents’ rights are under attack” by radical school boards. This was repeated ad nauseum during the parents panel  where nearly all of the participants were employed by a Project 2025 group, a M4L leader, or not a current K-12 parent. At least half of them were involved in America First Legal lawsuits against their school districts, as well. Repeatedly, they acted as if kids starting TP USA chapters were oppressed by their peers and under attack for merely wanting to “have a conversation,” when in fact the “ debate me ” mentality is rooted in deceptive , often toxic , tactics (e.g., heavy use of logical fallacies ), and bullying. Not only that, why would most people want to engage with those who are interested in taking away fundamental human rights, or want to debate civil rights? On social media, John Reid praised the attendees “an awesome group of parents,” although most of the crowd were grandparents with no kids in our schools. Unfortunately, since he has blocked me on his candidate page–an odd choice for a man who claims to be open to conversations–I had to ask a friend for his post. Speaking of Reid, he had an outrageously awkward and maybe too personal moment at the event. You could hear widespread muttering and audible gasps when he mentioned Baptist preachers and strippers, juices flowing, and secrets . It’s worth a listen. The question and answer period at the end of the event was most illuminating. For example, in response to a parent question about Governor Youngkin’s   recent public health directive , Earle-Sears responded that it is their attempt to force Northern Virginia schools to comply with the anti-trans Youngkin model policies and Prior advocated for lawfare against school districts when he said, “keep suing these school districts.” People cheered, but I wondered how much this lawfare is costing my county and my schools. Nonetheless, even I was surprised when an attendee shared that he dressed up as a furry  for school board meetings. He seemed honestly confused as to why his antics would be considered disturbances by the school boards. I guess what he considers “performance art” is considered by others to be sharing demeaning, debunked conspiracy theories . Ironically, I was the target of insults by this attendee  at a previous M4L Earle-Sears and Reid campaign stop in Prince William when he made unprompted anti-trans remarks about me, a cisgender mom, which begs the question: Where does performance art end and bullying begin?  If this had been a bingo drinking game of right-wing buzzwords, I would have been incapacitated before the end of the event, as they used the following words interchangeably: SEL, CRT, DEI, Marxism. The audience applauded and loved these words, despite the fact that the speakers never defined them, much less used them correctly. M4L speakers used a lot of disturbing warlike metaphors calling our schools “battlegrounds.” In her opening speech, Jensen ended with this statement : Remember, we are not just saving our schools. We are saving our kids' futures. We’re building a Virginia where our daughters are safe, our sons are heard, and parents are respected.  - Moms for Liberty Are our daughters not to be heard? Are our daughters not allowed to advocate for themselves? Which parents are to be respected? I certainly didn’t feel respected or heard in that room. And I have found myself to be the target of people like Prior who has called me a “Karen” for advocating for student civil rights while his associates have labeled me a “groomer” for merely sitting at a school board meeting. The Town Hall’s constant emphasis of “keeping girls safe” from bureaucratic bogeymen and transgender children reminded me of segregationist messaging from the 1960s where white people claimed that they and their children would be endangered by integration in schools and public spaces–as if to share public spaces with Black people made public spaces more dangerous. As in the 1960s with Black children, there is no evidence to support statements that transgender children pose a danger. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary showing that transgender children are more likely to be endangered by their cisgender peers.  Jensen’s statement  about keeping “daughters safe, sons heard, and parents respected” made me begin watching the Handmaid’s Tale. Although a little too close for comfort, Margaret Atwood’s book and the Hulu series, tells the tale of the end result of Christian Nationalist efforts to “keep girls safe” where girls and women have no freedom of choice, movement, much less bodily autonomy. The slow slide of women like Serena Joy of the Handmaid’s Tale being both the architects and handmaidens of an anti-women movement until only their sons and husbands were heard was not lost on me--especially considering the majority of the M4L Advisory Committee is men, and nearly all of their funding comes from men.  M4L and their allies focus on school boards, teachers, transgender children, and Marxism as dangers to girls, while completely ignoring real and present dangers to girls–including gun violence, sexual abuse, suicide, accidents, and disease–seemed like political pandering using tired Christian Nationalist tropes. As such, I can’t help but feel that their messaging about safety leads down a dark and dangerous path when they misidentify the sources of danger. It makes me think that their solutions will be similarly misguided, and will not have the interests of girls, boys, or parents in mind. Especially not parents like me whose interests are not represented by M4L.

The Betrayal of Virginians and Our Public Schools Virginia’s Attorney General (AG) is responsible for enforcing the law and supporting the civil rights and safety of Virginians. Unfortunately, for nearly four years, it feels like our AG has decided that culture wars are more important than civil rights.  It even feels like AG Jason Miyares is acting as the Trump administration’s errand boy, ensuring that Trump Executive Orders are followed, even if they conflict with the rule of law, US Constitution, and Congressional authority. Miyares has signed on to red-state Amicus Briefs supporting Trump administration actions against immigrants  that permit prison camps and deportation of undocumented immigrants without due process, and has withdrawn from Amicus Briefs supporting women’s reproductive health care . Neither of these actions seem to comply with the Code of Virginia , much less the Virginia Constitution . In terms of Trump’s actions on education, Miyares has been notably silent on behalf of Virginians in terms of federal funding, civil rights, etc. In March 2025, Miyares refused to join 21 other Attorney Generals who sued  the Trump administration for illegally dismantling the U.S. Department of Education (US ED). In July 2025, Miyares refused to join 25 other Attorney Generals suing  over after-school funding paused by the Trump administration. Why is our AG failing our students, families, and schools? Unfortunately, it seems that Miyares has deep connections to various Project 2025 groups that are fulfilling Project 2025’s anti-public school and anti-LGBTQIA agenda. For example in January 2024, General Miyares’ special counsel Maggie Cleary  joined Project 2025’s Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) as a “visiting fellow.” IWF is an anti-feminist non-profit  with over  $7 million 2023 revenue  (tax free), and it focuses an unreasonable amount of attention on and lawsuits against Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). Many of Miyares’ legal actions seem to be in lock step with America First Legal , a far right group begun by Stephen Miller to sue the Biden Administration, but which has morphed into a group that focuses on burying school districts and companies in civil rights suits that benefit white, cisgender, heterosexual, and Christian men and women.  America First Legal is one of the authors of Project 2025 . If you are a history buff, you may notice that “America First” was also the name of the Nazi-associated, isolationist and antisemitic movement exemplified by the  America First Committee , that existed in the US before the Axis Power attacks on our country at the start of World War II. A small group of congressmen associated with this influential committee were found to have  colluded with Germany prior to the war  and were involved in plots to overthrow the government. Equally concerning is that Miyares attends events sponsored by anti-public school groups like: the Family Foundation of Virginia  which has rallied against FCPS students and civil rights, and Turning Point USA  which put a target on multiple northern Virginia school districts due to their curricula, policies, and regulations that support student education, diversity, equity, equality, and inclusion. Many of Miyares’ actions and investigations were driven by reports from various right-wing media sources, such as the Fairfax Times, which has employed and/or highlighted IWF “fellows” (e.g., Asra Nomani, Harry Jackson, and Stephanie Lundquist-Arora). In other cases, he has repeatedly sided with Project 2025 groups like America First Legal. For example: In April 2022 , AG Miyares filed an Amicus Brief  with the Supreme Court to vacate a stay  and support the Coalition for TJ ’s claims against FCPS. Interestingly, nearly a half dozen of the Coalition for TJ’s leaders are known to be members and/or employed by IWF and/or Parents Defending Education , a known SPLC-defined hate group, including: Nomani , Jackson , Lundquist Arora, Marisa Fallon, and Suparna Dutta, most of whom have been regularly featured or employed by the Fairfax Times. Read more here . In January 2023 , based on exaggerated reporting in the Fairfax Times and the complaint of one non-Asian parent, Miyares leveraged the civil rights division of the Commonwealth of Virginia to pursue an investigation of alleged anti-Asian discrimination due to delayed distribution of National Merit Commended Certificates, despite no Asian-American students  or families raising an alarm. Miyares’ investigation resulted in two failed lawsuits costing over $1.6 million in outside legal fees for FCPS, threats against FCPS staff, taxpayer dollars wasted by Miyares’ office, and unknown impacts on FCPS and student education due to the manufactured crisis. Read the full story here . In March 2023 , AG Miyares said in a press release that he found “blatant examples of racial and ethnic discrimination” in FCPS. Seemingly inspired by reporting by Asra Nomani , AG Miyares alleged that a FCPS middle school (Cooper) discriminated against students based on race, color, and national origin in an email sent to families regarding a college preparatory program offered by the county. In response, FCPS called AG Miyares’ claims “ false ” and that they resulted in distractions from education and threats to school principals. In June 2024 , Miyares   filed an Amicus Brief  in support of America First Legal’s case Jane Doe v. Fairfax County School Board  (case: 2024-03171) which contended that FCPS policies  regarding harassment of transgender students and their access to bathrooms violated the religious liberty rights of a high school student, Jane Doe.  In July 2024 , AG Miyares “spearheaded” an Amicus Brief  on behalf of Wisconsin  parents regarding transgender students’ pronoun rights .  In May 2025 , Attorney General Jason Miyares finalized the investigation into TJ admissions that began in January 2023, which was also spurred by Coalition for TJ and Fairfax Times reporting. Using Coalition for TJ statistics, his Office of Civil Rights allegedly “found reasonable cause” that FCPS was in violation of the Virginia Human Rights Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discriminating against Asian American students in its admissions process. Miyares referred FCPS to US ED and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Pacific Legal Foundation , Coalition for TJ’s pro bono lawyer and known Koch-funded  dark money group, indicated that Miyares enabled the US ED Office for Civil Rights to open its own investigation into the 5-year old TJ admissions question. On September 25, 2025 , Miyares filed amicus briefs  to deny emergency requests for injunctions by FCPS and APS. Miyares demonstrated his support for the federal overreach by the US ED and violation of student civil rights by this statement, “The policies in Fairfax and Arlington allowing students to use restrooms and locker rooms based on subjective gender identity instead of biological sex are unlawful, unsafe, and indefensible. The Fourth Circuit should deny the schools’ attempt to rewrite the law through litigation.” On October 1, 2025 , Miyares filed an Amicus Brief  in support of the students whose harassment of a transgender student in a LCPS locker room resulted in their suspension, thereby supporting the Founding Freedoms Law Center  representing the Loudoun County boys over supporting the civil rights of all students. Founding Freedoms is the legal arm of the Richmond-based Family Foundation of Virginia, a known anti-LGBTQIA extremist group . Unfortunately, AG Miyares has also failed to protect Virginians’ health care, cancer research grants, safety, charitable funding, and university funding . He did this by sitting back rather than standing up to fight for Virginians’ rights:  AG Miyares declined to join 22 other state AGs who sued to block cuts to NIH. Those AGs won in federal court so the grant funding would continue, but only in those 22 states which means the loss of already appropriated NIH grant funding for cancer research at Virginia institutions like UVA and Virginia Tech.  AG Miyares declined to protest Trump’s attempts to overturn birthright citizenship. AG Miyares declined to join 23 Democratic attorneys general who sued and won to halt freezes of charitable funding for adoption assistance and food kitchens. AG Miyares was silent regarding pardons for violent January 6th insurrectionists. AG Miyares did nothing when 11 of Virginia’s 31 qualified health centers had their funding disrupted by the Trump Administration. Three health centers in Richmond had to close their doors . AG Miyares’ actions over the last four years have been steeped in culture war battles over transgender civil rights and manufactured crises. His efforts to roll back the rights of transgender students includes his misinterpretation of the law to support Governor Youngkin’s “Model Policies” which the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)  described as: P art of a coordinated, national effort to erase transgender and nonbinary students from the classroom. At best, they invite discrimination; at worst, they require it. Attorney General Jason Miyares’ opinion defending the policies is every bit as cruel and misguided as the policies themselves. As Marianne Burke stated , as AG, Miyares should “represent and protect the public interest, and make the welfare of Virginians the highest priority.” Instead, Miyares has shown loyalty to President Trump and an extreme right-wing agenda over the people of Virginia. His actions and decisions fly in the face of school districts’ rights, public education funding, and civil rights of Virginia’s students. However, it is clear that his decisions have a profound effect on all Virginians when they affect civil rights, funding, cancer research, and women’s health care. The Democratic Attorney’s General Association  statement rings true that Miyares “doesn’t have his priorities straight” because of his constant attacks on transgender youth and utter silence on Trump funding freezes, which affect every Virginian. Instead of working to protect families, kids, and vital federal grants and loans that are essential to the livelihood of millions of Virginians, [MIyares is] proving once again he’s incapable of putting Virginians first and keeping them safe.

State Campaigns Focus on Local Policies in the 2025 Election An important part of voting is determining who is the best candidate. This has become even more difficult in recent years as news reports have become increasingly one-sided and often distorted for political advantage. This year’s election in Virginia seems particularly focused on cultural issues , most notably the rights and protections of transgender students.  With just weeks until the election, Lieutenant Governor Earle-Sears, who is the GOP candidate for Governor, John Reid who is candidate for Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General Miyares, who is running for reelection, speak passionately about their objection to policies that protect and provide rights to transgender students. They use two recent alleged incidents between students as justification for rolling back the rights and protections currently provided to trans students in some Virginia school districts.  It is disturbing that those candidates don’t provide a balanced accounting of the incidents but instead present only the parts of the stories that support their political agenda and vilify the transgender students allegedly involved. For example, in a recent Fairfax case, Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earl-Sears claimed  a “boy” was watching girls undress in the girls locker room; however, she implied that this student was transgender without evidence. In the Loudoun case, Attorney General Jason Miyares claimed  that a “girl” recorded boys in the boys’ locker room but Miyares did not reveal that it was a transgender boy who recorded the students sexually harassing him to provide to school administrators as evidence of the harassment. Nor did he reveal that all three boys were suspended, because the recording documented sexual harassment by the two boys and the transgender boy had violated the rules by recording in the locker room . Instead, Miyares focused on the trans student who was violating school policy, and ignored the sexual harassment by the other two boys. Alarmingly, he referred to the harassers as the “victims .” In both the recent Fairfax and Loudoun incidents, the cisgender students accused of sexual harassment and favored by Sears and Miyares, already have free lawyers from extremist groups: Founding Freedoms Law Center  is representing the Loudoun County boys, who are trying to overturn their suspension, in the Loudoun incident. Founding Freedoms is the legal arm of the Richmond-based Family Foundation of Virginia, a known anti-LGBTQIA extremist group . Defense of Freedom Institute  (DFI) is the far right group  representing the Fairfax girls, and is trying to use the incident to overturn the civil rights of transgender students, as supported by FCPS. DFI, a tax-exempt organization,  was founded by two former Trump US Department of Education (US ED) officials in 2021. Incidentally, DFI contributed to Project 2025 on education issues . Over the last decade there have been many debates over the rights and protections that should be provided to transgender students. Some politicians are so desperate to be elected that they provide biased information to gain a political edge. In addition, changes in administrations can result in changes in transgender youth rights and protections as  with Miyares' and Youngkin's focus on transgender youth and public education access.  Below is a description of how transgender rights and protections have evolved in Virginia over the last decade.  Ebb and flow of transgender student rights in Virginia  Gavin Grimm came out as a transgender boy in 2016 during his sophomore year at Gloucester High School in Virginia. Because that school’s policies restricted him from using the facilities used by other boys, he sued his school board. Grimm’s case was dismissed  by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia  even though the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had backed Grimm in his lawsuit . Subsequently the DOJ stated that the district judge's reasoning was “faulty and should not be followed.”  Grimm appealed his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which ruled that the Gloucester County School Board violated both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. ” In 2017, after President Donald Trump took office and his administration rolled back protections for transgender students under Title IX, the school board appealed the case to the Supreme Court. That court sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to be reconsidered in light of the Trump revised Title IX guidance that “clarified” protections for transgender students under the first Trump administration.  In 2020 Grimm won that appeal and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals again determined that the school board violated the law . That same year then Governor Northam developed Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students  which enabled transgender students in Virginia to use names, pronouns, and facilities that aligned with their gender identity. Also, the model policy provided new guidance for creating safe and supportive environments for transgender students, just as were already available for cisgender students. This policy was consistent with the federal law because it prohibited bullying, harassment or discrimination. Transgender students were to be treated in accordance with their gender identity under Title IX. In 2022, Governor Glenn Youngkin's administration revised Virginia’s model policies  for transgender students in Virginia, and to a large degree ended their rights and protections. The new model policy stated that students should use bathrooms and locker rooms based on the gender they were assigned at birth. In addition, it offered an “ opt out” option  for parents to request a sex-separated facility where the federal law requires schools to permit transgender students to share otherwise sex-segregated facilities with students of the opposite gender. Five school districts in Virginia refused to comply  with the revised policies, and were legally able to do so as model policies are more suggestions than a law.  In June 2024, AG Miyares   filed an Amicus Brief  in support of a  case against FCPS  which contended that FCPS policies  regarding harassment of transgender students and their access to bathrooms violated the religious liberty rights of a high school student, Jane Doe.  Also in 2024, President Joe Biden’s administration  formalized  the long-standing view that under Title IX sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity as well as sexual orientation. Immediately following inauguration in 2025, President Trump initiated a series of Executive Orders intended to roll back the protections and rights of transgender students, but even then not all school districts complied. To date the districts that have refused to comply with both Governor Youngkin’s and President Trump’s transgender policies include Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties; and the cities of Arlington and Alexandria. These districts maintain that their trans policies are protected  by the Fourth Circuit decision on Gavin v. Gloucester County School Board.  After the U.S. Department of Education (US ED) announced they were withholding federal funds for lack of compliance, the FCPS board sued the US ED, but the suit was dismissed . The school board appealed the decision to a higher court and asked for an emergency injunction. In response, Attorney General (and candidate) Jason Miyares filed an amicus brief  to deny the emergency request for an injunction by FCPS and APS. On October 1, 2025, Miyares filed another amicus brief  in support of the students whose alleged sexual harassment of a transgender student in a LCPS locker room resulted in their suspension, thereby supporting the accused over supporting the civil rights of all students. To date the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has not announced if they will hear the appeal.  Virginia 2025 Candidates’ stances on transgender rights in schools On the campaign trail, democratic candidates are focusing on the economy, federal overreach, and civil rights of Virginians. On the other hand, republican candidates seem to be hyperfocused on transgender students and their access to bathrooms and locker rooms .  Gubernatorial candidate and Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears supports policies that separate facilities by “biological sex,” a term that, outside of policymaking , is considered to be inaccurate by the medical profession  and anti-LGBTQIA hate speech by others . She appears happy to discount some of the most vulnerable students in Virginia in order to prevent a minority of students from feeling uncomfortable. Recently, at a rally at a Fairfax County middle school  she stated  “How about let’s just have fairness. Let’s have girls have their private spaces and boys have their private spaces. It has worked for how many millennia, and certainly it can work now.” The democratic candidate for Governor in Virginia, Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger   stated that she believes “...we need to get politics out of our schools and trust parents and local communities,” and that her “priority is making sure Virginia’s kids are safe and supported.” A statement made in 2022 provides  more specifics on her opinion of the Youngkin administration’s revised policy: “Gov. Youngkin’s [transgender] mandate targets vulnerable children, and it’s downright shameful to think that an elected leader would punch down at kids to score political points. This mandate rolls back the rights of kids to be themselves in schools.” The Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor, John Reid said  that transgender students were “delusional,” “trans ideology is not normal,” and “... for us to engage and indulge sexual delusion, and that’s what this is. ... No one is changing their sex by declaring themselves to be something other than they are.”  The Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor Senator Ghazala Hashmi criticized her Republican colleagues for discriminating against transgender students and  said  “Far too often, society’s message to transgender children and youth is that they don’t belong and that they should not be seen for who they are… We need to focus on funding our schools, providing mental health services, supporting our teachers and ensuring safe learning environments. It’s time to stop these culture wars that target trans kids.”“ Jason Miyares , who is running for reelection as Attorney General, stated in an amicus brief  against the five Northern Virginia school districts this summer, "The policies in Fairfax and Arlington allowing students to use restrooms and locker rooms based on subjective gender identity instead of biological sex are unlawful, unsafe, and indefensible.” Vanessa Hall noted that Miyares consistently supports federal overreach by the US ED and violations of student civil rights. The democratic challenger for Attorney General, Jay Jones ,   replied when asked about his opinion on trans policies in public schools “ I believe these are decisions that should be decided locally, and that neither politicians in Richmond nor Washington should be telling local communities and parents what to do.” Impacts on transgender students  The Fairfax County Public School System and other school systems that refuse to adopt the transgender policies of Youngkin and Trump, believe their policies are protected  by the Fourth Circuit decision on Gavin v. Gloucester County School Board. Until the courts rule differently, these schools intend to provide the rights and protections for transgender students as outlined in that decision.  Nevertheless Trump’s Executive Order Imposing Restrictions on Transgender Students in K-12 Schools has led to his withholding federal funds from schools that are in what he calls “non-compliance”. His mandated policy and withholding of funds can have major impacts  on the approximately 300,000 trans students in our schools. These impacts include: a general impact on the health and well-being of transgender students and negative physical and mental outcomes of the students associated with schools that do not recognize student’s gender identity. These outcomes are specifically associated with restrictions on access to bathrooms and other gender segregated facilities. In addition any forced outing of trans students to their families can result in abuse, rejection, homelessness drug addiction, declining mental health and suicide.

Executive Orders Harming Public Education If you’ve been hiding under a rock (or your bed), you may have missed the news of the myriad of Executive Orders (EOs) coming out of the White House in President Trump’s first couple of weeks in office. Trump has signed more EOs in his first 10 days  than any President in their first 100 days.  These EOs are Project 2025 incarnate , each worse than the one before it: pardoning violent criminals, removing critical environmental protections, initiating a hiring freeze affecting all levels of government including health care for veterans, and so much more.  Primarily, states and local governments control curricula, classrooms, and operations; however, sweeping orders intended to make broad social agenda changes will impact public education, including aggressive anti-immigrant actions, redefining gender, targeting civil rights protections, and sweeping broader social agenda changes.  Before you close the browser and hide under your bed again because “it is all just too much ,” check out alternative analyses of some the Trump EOs here: The Daily Show's Ronny Chieng covers the first EOs in 30 seconds here . Seth Meyers covers the grant freeze EO, which was quickly rescinded here . The Daily Show’s John Stewart covers the impact of the DEI EO here . The Daily Show’s Joshua Johnson recaps the first week of EOs here . If you are still here and not under your bed, you can read a rundown of the EOs that will negatively impact on students, public schools, and families at the end of this blog. But before you do, please consider the current effort by Trump to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education  (Dept of Ed) which has both a: 1) financial role distributing billions to colleges and K-12 schools; and 2) regulatory role including providing services to disabled, lower income, and homeless children. Interrupting these roles will have devastating effects for families, students, and school districts across the country. Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out that the three EOs  targeting DEI are attempting to turn back the clock on civil rights and upend “longstanding, bipartisan federal policy meant to open doors that had been unfairly closed. In his first few days, President Donald Trump is undertaking a deliberate effort to obfuscate and weaponize civil rights laws that address discrimination and ensure everyone has a fair chance to compete, whether it’s for a job, a promotion, or an education.” Specifically, via these three EOs, Trump is “aiming to chill  efforts to promote equal access in education.” A number of the EOs threaten civil rights of the transgender community  including access to healthcare, sports, bathrooms, military service, and the right to exist.  As a result, multiple groups are suing the Trump administration for their attacks on these civil rights, including: Families and PFLAG, supported by Lamda Legal   and the ACLU , have filed a complaint  against Trump’s order to end all federal funding or support for healthcare for children under the age of 19. Trump’s order resulted in healthcare facilities across the country ending critical healthcare and support for transgender children and their families. Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign  who are suing to ensure that brave men and women are not banned from military service. Of course, threats to public education come from multiple EOs as evidenced by the January 29th memo to freeze thousands of public programs and grants, including Title 1 funding, meals on wheels, and homelessness programs. Pressure from advocates, congress people, and 22 Attorneys General ensured a temporary restraining order  was put in place. So these school community grants are safe…for now. Obviously, this is devastating news; however, dozens of lawsuits  have already been filed to combat the federal overreach and possible illegal actions by the Trump administration. Some of these have already resulted in temporary restraining orders. Nevertheless, keep vigilant, take care of yourself and your loved ones, keep on doing the work , and demand accountability  from this administration and your elected officials, in particular U.S. Senators  and Representatives  who are responsible to hold the Executive Branch in check. If you care about public schools, teachers, and students, pick something you are passionate about and advocate for it. Find groups that are like-minded and join them. Give funds to group suing for funding, civil rights, and freedom that is being taken away by these EOs. RESIST. Trump EOs that Will Affect Public Schools The President also rescinded close to 80 executive orders of preceding Presidents, including those that protect  LGBTQIA people, offer asylum to refugees, efforts to reunite migrant families, and more. Education Week examines  Trump’s first week of education-related EOs, but here are links an further information about education-related EOs to date:  Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government  – This EO redefined “men” and “women” to a restrictive conception-based, non-scientific, incorrect, and likely illegal definition that effectively defined all Americans as women . In addition, Trump removed transgender protections, rights, and government publications. Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing  – Ends all federal government programs related to diversity, equity, inclusion, (DEI) and accessibility, and terminates federal positions related to DEI. Immediately, accessibility on many federal websites was disabled. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) removed guidance and training documents and canceled DEI training. The Army removed sexual assault guidelines , but reinstated them after outcry; however, this action begs the question of how will sexual assault and harassment be treated in public schools. Additionally, the EO as it intends to “encourage”  ending DEI in private business and elsewhere. See Anjy Cramer’s blog on how DEI is civil rights . Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling  – This EO seeks to push federal policies on states and school districts as to what can be taught, where kids can go to the bathroom, and the level of patriotism in teachers’ civics lessons. It is unknown how this will affect public schools, particularly since typically states and localities have the authority over curricula and school policies. Nevertheless, it is chilling and threatening  using words such as “indoctrination,” “radical,” and “anti-American.” Additionally, some far right groups like America First Legal are targeting Virginia school districts with lawfare  by demanding federal investigations of Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William school districts. Establishing And Implementing The President’s “Department Of Government Efficiency  (DOGE) – This unleashed DOGE on the federal government where Elon Musk’s agents  have gained access to sensitive (e.g., private, financial, or protected) data in multiple agencies and are attempting to dismantle multiple federal agencies. The impact of this likely illegal effort  will be felt in every sphere of American life.  Expanding Educational Freedom And Opportunity For Families  – Prioritizes school choice in the ED via discretionary grants, which will pull more taxpayer money from public schools. Protecting The American People Against Invasion  – This is the primary mass deportation EO which is wreaking havoc in communities across the U.S. It permits Immigration, and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct arrests in schools, churches, hospitals, and courthouses–all places that used to be sacrosanct, but now are targets of deportation terror and chaos. This is one of several EOs  targeting immigrants, refugees, and schools. See 4 Public Education’s blogs on how departion cruelly affects public school communities  and Fairfax County Public Schools response to deportation . Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation  – This EO specifically targets transgender children’s healthcare. The ACLU identifies that the EO “directs federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that offer gender-affirming medical treatments such as puberty suppressants and hormone therapies to anyone under 19, threatening to shut down access to essential health care that is already out of reach for many.” Restoring Accountability To Policy-Influencing Positions Within The Federal Workforce  – This is an effort to convert federal civil servants, most of whom are experts in their field and serve the American people, to political appointees loyal to the Trump Administration. Thus, merit ends in the federal government.