Politics

Ending the Indoctrination: Why School Choice Is The Only Way To Save US Education

Published

3 months ago

December 4, 2025

Walk into almost any school board meeting today and it feels less like a talk about reading and math, and more like a political rally. Parents argue about “radical indoctrination.” Lawmakers argue about “patriotic education.” Teachers feel caught in the crossfire.

In 2025, a new executive order titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K‑12 Schooling” promised to crack down on lessons about systemic racism, white privilege, and gender identity, and to push a more patriotic story of America instead. Supporters said it would protect kids. Critics said it was itself a political attempt to control what children learn.

Both sides are afraid that the other side will use schools to shape kids’ beliefs. That fear is not crazy. When almost every child must attend a system controlled by a small group of leaders, the risk of indoctrination is always there, no matter who is in charge.

School choice, where money follows the student instead of the system, offers a different path. It gives families the power to walk away from schools that push one narrow worldview, and to pick places that match their values and help their kids think for themselves.

This article breaks down what indoctrination really is, how the current system makes it possible, why school choice protects kids and improves learning, and what steps parents and voters can take right now.

What Indoctrination in Schools Really Means (And What It Does Not)

A lot of people use the word “indoctrination,” but they don’t always mean the same thing. So let’s start simple.

Indoctrination means teaching students what to think, instead of how to think.

It shows up when:

Only one answer is allowed on big questions about history, race, gender, or politics.
Students feel afraid to ask honest questions.
Kids are shamed, punished, or graded down for disagreeing with the teacher’s beliefs.

Both the right and the left accuse each other of this. Some conservative groups say schools are pushing “woke” ideas about race and gender, and dividing kids into victims and oppressors. Some progressive groups say schools are being pushed to hide honest history, silence LGBTQ students, and replace real debate with flag-waving slogans.

The 2025 executive order against “radical indoctrination” is a good example of this tug of war. It threatens to pull federal money from schools that teach ideas like systemic racism or gender identity, and it brings back the 1776 Commission to promote a patriotic version of U.S. history. Supporters see this as a fix. Critics see it as top-down political pressure on classrooms.

Honest teaching looks different. Honest teaching:

Covers hard topics like slavery, racism, and discrimination.
Shares more than one viewpoint where experts disagree.
Invites questions, even tough or unpopular ones.
Helps kids test ideas with evidence, not just feelings.

Indoctrination, by contrast, allows only one “correct” view and treats questions as a threat.

Teaching kids how to think vs telling them what to think

Picture two versions of the same classroom.

In the first classroom, the teacher writes a statement on the board, like “The United States has always been a force for good in the world,” or “America is a racist country.” Then the teacher says: “Your job is to explain why this is true.” Students who raise doubts get shut down. They learn quickly that the safe move is to agree.

That is telling kids what to think.

In the second classroom, the teacher writes the same statement, but adds: “Do you agree or disagree? Why?” Students read different sources, maybe a speech by a civil rights leader, a piece from a veteran, a historian’s article. They work in groups, question each other, and share what they find.

That is teaching kids how to think.

Critical thinking means:

Asking questions.
Looking at evidence.
Comparing different sides.
Changing your mind when the facts change.

Kids do not need a college-level philosophy lesson to do this. They need space to speak, listen, and think out loud without fear of being labeled or punished.

Why both political sides fear bias in public schools

People from different parties worry about different kinds of bias.

Many conservatives fear that:

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) lessons paint all white students as oppressors.
Lessons on gender identity confuse kids or push ideas that clash with their faith.
Schools teach kids to distrust police, the flag, or their own country.

Many progressives fear that:

New rules will censor honest teaching on slavery, Jim Crow, and ongoing racism.
LGBTQ students will be erased when schools avoid talking about gender or identity.
“Patriotic education” will turn into one-sided cheerleading that hides mistakes.

There are real cases on both sides. Some states have told teachers to avoid “divisive concepts.” Other districts have used training materials that treat some kids as automatic victims and others as automatic oppressors. Leaders in both camps have tried to block ideas they dislike.

When one system controls almost all kids, every group fights to control that system. The school system itself becomes the prize in a never-ending culture war.

What research really shows about political bias in classrooms

Headlines often make it sound like every classroom is a political echo chamber. The research paints a more mixed picture.

Surveys of teachers often show that:

Many try to present more than one view on hot topics.
Most say they avoid pushing their personal politics.
They report feeling pressure from both sides to “stay safe” or “stay quiet.”

Student surveys suggest that:

Some students do hear political opinions from teachers.
Many say teachers allow discussion, but some topics now feel off-limits.
Laws about “banned concepts” or fear of complaints can lead schools to skip hard but important lessons.

In other words, there is less proof of mass indoctrination than social media claims. But the structure of the system is fragile. A single election, law, or executive order can tilt things quickly.

That fragility is the real problem. If one group gains power, it can use a centralized system to push its ideas from the top down, to every classroom at once.

How the Current US Public School System Opens the Door to Indoctrination

You do not need a grand conspiracy to end up with political classrooms. You only need a structure where a few people control what millions of children hear all day.

Right now, that is how U.S. public schooling works.

Centralized rules, strong unions, and large agencies shape what happens far more than individual families do. Funding, tests, standards, and approved textbooks mostly sit in the hands of lawmakers and education departments, not parents.

At the same time, academic results are sliding. National tests like the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that reading and math scores for high school seniors hit historic lows in 2024. About 45 percent of 12th graders scored below basic in math and about 32 percent scored below basic in reading. The drops are worst for struggling students.

So while adults fight about ideology, many kids cannot read, write, or do math at the level they need for real life.

Centralized control: when one system decides what every child hears

Centralized control sounds abstract, but kids feel it every day.

In practice, it looks like this:

State boards pick curriculum standards that say what topics teachers must cover.
Those standards drive which textbooks big publishers create and sell.
Federal rules and grants offer money if states follow certain priorities.
Local districts must fall in line if they want that money.

A single law can decide whether teachers can talk about systemic racism, gender identity, or climate change, or whether they must teach a certain version of U.S. history. A single executive order can push schools toward one “approved” story of America.

That means millions of kids can have their lessons changed overnight by people they will never meet.

Teacher unions, politics, and who really runs the classroom

Teacher unions are groups that represent teachers when they bargain over pay, job security, and working conditions. They give teachers a voice, and many members see them as a shield against unfair treatment.

But unions are also big political players. They:

Endorse candidates.
Spend money on campaigns.
Support or fight education laws.

Unions and advocacy groups often push back hard against orders they dislike, or push just as hard for policies they do like. Parents, school boards, and lawmakers join the tug of war. Classrooms sit in the middle.

Most teachers care deeply about kids. Many hate the politics. The problem is not that teachers are bad. The problem is that they work in a system that is big, rigid, and highly political by design.

Culture wars vs student learning: reading and math scores are slipping

While adults argue, student learning is not keeping up.

NAEP results in recent years show long-term struggles in reading and math, with sharp drops after COVID and only slow recovery. In 2024, nearly half of high school seniors tested below basic in math. Large gaps between the strongest and weakest students keep growing.

Education leaders share plans, task forces, and slogans, yet many students still leave school unready for college or skilled work.

When every news story about schools focuses on race, gender, or flags, less attention goes to basics like:

Early reading instruction.
Strong math teaching in middle school.
Mental health support.
Career and technical pathways.

The more centralized and political the system becomes, the harder it is to focus on what kids truly need.

Why School Choice Protects Kids From Indoctrination and Boosts Learning

School choice flips the script. Instead of funding a system and assigning kids to it by zip code, it funds students and lets families choose.

In simple terms, school choice means public money follows the child. Families can use that money at:

Traditional public schools.
Public charter schools.
Private schools.
Online or hybrid schools.
Home-education programs, in some states.

This does two big things.

First, it acts like a safety valve against indoctrination. If a school pushes a one-sided worldview, parents can leave, and the funding goes with the child. No group can hold kids captive inside one system.

Second, it pushes schools to earn trust. When families can walk, schools must focus on quality, respect, and real results.

School choice is not owned by one party. Conservative parents, progressive parents, and politically independent parents can all use choice to find schools that match their values and still teach kids how to think.

What school choice is (and what critics get wrong)

There are a few main types of school choice:

Vouchers: The state gives a set amount of money for each child, which parents can use for private school tuition.
Education savings accounts (ESAs): Parents get a portion of their child’s education funding in a controlled account and can spend it on approved uses, like tuition, tutoring, or online classes.
Charter schools: Public schools that are free to attend but run by independent groups under a contract, with more flexibility and more accountability for results. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has basic guides on how these schools work.
Open enrollment: Families can choose public schools outside their assigned zone if seats are open.

Critics worry that school choice will:

Drain money from neighborhood public schools.
Help only wealthy or well-connected families.
Spread radical content with taxpayer funds.

Poorly written laws can create problems. But well-designed programs can require:

Clear admission rules.
Strong transparency about curriculum and results.
Basic safety and anti-discrimination standards.
Extra support for low-income and special-needs students.

The goal is not to blow up public education. The goal is to give families real options and make every school earn its students.

How choice breaks the monopoly on kids’ minds

Think about how you pick a doctor.

If one clinic treats you badly, ignores your questions, or pushes treatments you dislike, you can switch. Because you can leave, clinics have a strong reason to listen and respect you.

Now imagine if the government assigned you one clinic based on your address, and it was almost impossible to change. That clinic could get lazy, rude, or political, and you would still be stuck.

That is close to how many school systems work today.

School choice breaks that monopoly. If one school leans too far into politics or censors key facts, parents can move their child. Funding follows. Schools that listen and teach well grow. Schools that ignore families shrink.

You do not have to clean every bit of politics out of the system. You give families the power to pick learning spaces that match their values and still focus on academics. That balance is far more realistic in a diverse country.

Evidence that school choice can raise achievement and satisfaction

Research on school choice is large and still growing. It is not perfect, but patterns are clear enough to see.

Studies of charter schools and voucher programs in several states find that:

Many charter schools, especially those serving low-income students and students of color, improve graduation rates and college entry compared with nearby district schools.
Some voucher programs show gains in reading and long-term outcomes, though short-term test score results can be mixed.
Parent satisfaction almost always rises when families have more options, even when test score gains are modest.

A good entry point into this research is the EdChoice research library, which groups studies by program and outcome.

The key idea is simple: when families have information and real choices, they can match kids to programs that fit their needs. That helps both freedom and learning at the same time.

A Parent’s Guide: How to Use School Choice to Protect Your Child From Indoctrination

Big policy talks matter, but parents need concrete steps too. Even if you live in a state with limited school choice, you still have tools.

Questions to ask any school about values, curriculum, and free speech

When you visit a school or talk with leaders, bring questions like these:

How do you teach controversial topics such as race, gender, and politics?
Do you present more than one side when experts disagree?
Are students free to share different views, as long as they are respectful?
Can parents see curriculum, lesson plans, and reading lists?
How do you choose guest speakers or outside programs?
What happens if a student feels pressured to agree with a certain view?
How do you handle bullying or harassment tied to beliefs or identity?

You are listening less for a perfect script and more for an attitude. Look for openness, humility, and respect for both students and parents.

How to compare school options: public, charter, private, and home education

Different types of schools have different strengths. From an indoctrination and freedom point of view, here is a quick snapshot:

Option	Pros for freedom and fit	Possible concerns
Neighborhood public	Free, local, known structure; some choice of programs	Less flexibility, district politics, assigned by zip code
Public charter	More flexibility in teaching, mission, and schedule	Waitlists, quality varies by school
Private	Clear value or faith focus, strong culture options	Tuition costs, scholarship access, uneven quality
Home education	Full control over content and pace, strong family input	Time demand on parents, social and activity planning

Whatever you pick, do three things:

Visit and sit in on classes if possible.
Talk with other parents and older students.
Look at student work samples, not just scores or brochures.

Ask yourself: “Does this place respect my child’s mind, my family’s values, and honest debate?”

What to do if you feel your child is being pressured or silenced

If you sense a problem, act, but stay calm and focused on your child’s wellbeing.

Talk with your child. Ask open questions. “What did the teacher say?” “How did you feel?” “Did you feel safe to speak up?”
Gather examples. Save assignments, emails, and notes. Write down dates and what was said.
Meet with the teacher. Share your concerns in a respectful way. “My child felt pressured to agree with this idea. Can we talk about how to handle disagreement in class?”
Go to the principal if needed. If things do not change, bring your notes and ask for a plan. Ask about alternative assignments or a classroom change.
Know your child’s rights. Groups like the ACLU’s student rights page explain free speech protections for students.
Consider a school change. If the culture does not improve, look at charter, private, or home-based options, or at least supplement at home with books and discussions that balance what your child hears in class.

Your goal is not to win a political fight. Your goal is to protect your child’s mind and keep their love of learning alive.

Conclusion: Saving Education by Trusting Families First

The real danger in U.S. education is not only one side’s ideology. It is the power of a single, centralized system over millions of children. Indoctrination becomes possible whenever families cannot walk away.

School choice is the most peaceful and fair way to protect kids from political games and raise learning at the same time. It breaks the monopoly on children’s minds and lets parents choose schools that respect both their values and their child’s curiosity.

If you care about honest education, start local. Learn what your state allows, support policies that expand choice, talk with other parents, and stay involved in your child’s learning.

A freer, more honest, and more effective school system is possible. It starts with a simple belief: families, not distant bureaucrats, should decide what kind of education their children receive.

Politics

Bill Clinton’s Testimony Triggers Backlash: Bill Says “I Saw Nothing, Did Nothing Wrong

Published

4 days ago

February 28, 2026

VORNews

Bill Clinton-Epstein Testimony Triggers Backlash

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Jeffrey Epstein saga took another sharp turn this week after former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke publicly about their past ties to the convicted sex offender.

Their comments followed closed-door depositions with the House Oversight Committee, and the reaction was immediate. Critics, survivors’ advocates, and political voices accused the Clintons of ducking hard questions and minimizing a well-documented association.

Lawmakers compelled the depositions by subpoena after early pushback, making the sessions a rare moment in which former top officials testified under oath in a congressional review tied to Epstein’s sex trafficking network.

Bill Clinton’s insistence that he “saw nothing” and “did nothing wrong,” paired with Hillary Clinton’s statement that she “does not recall ever encountering” Epstein, sparked a new wave of anger. Among the loudest critics, media personality Megyn Kelly called Clinton a “liar.”

The Latest Depositions: Firm Denials, Sharp Pushback

On February 27, 2026, Bill Clinton sat for nearly six hours of closed-door questioning in New York with the Republican-led House Oversight Committee. In an opening statement later shared on social media, he described Epstein as a “brief acquaintance” and said their contact ended long before Epstein’s crimes became widely known.

“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said. “Even with 20/20 hindsight, I saw nothing that ever gave me pause.” He added that if he had known what Epstein was doing, he would have “turned him in myself.” Clinton pointed to his upbringing in a home touched by domestic abuse as part of his explanation for why he would not have ignored misconduct.

He also confirmed he flew on Epstein’s private plane multiple times for charitable work, and he said Secret Service agents were present. At the same time, he denied ever visiting Epstein’s island and said he never saw illegal behavior. Clinton also said he didn’t recognize a woman pictured with him in a jacuzzi in Justice Department files that later became public.

A day earlier, on February 26, Hillary Clinton testified for more than six hours. In her opening statement, she said, “I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein.” She repeated that she never flew on Epstein’s plane, never visited his properties, and had no involvement with him. She also criticized the committee, saying it was using the matter for partisan distractions.

Both Clintons also tried to distance themselves from Epstein’s associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. In addition, they expressed support for survivors seeking justice and healing.

Critics React: Claims of Evasion and Unbelievable Answers

Even so, the pushback has been intense. Critics argue the denials don’t square with what’s already in the public record. That record includes flight logs that show Bill Clinton on Epstein’s plane at least 26 times, plus reports of Epstein visiting the White House during Clinton’s presidency.

Megyn Kelly, a conservative commentator and journalist, has led much of the public criticism. In media appearances tied to the Epstein files and the depositions, Kelly rejected Clinton’s account. She called him a “liar” and referred to him as a “predator.” Her comments matched a broader view among detractors that Clinton’s past makes his assurances hard to trust.

Meanwhile, survivors’ advocates and online commentators said the testimonies felt dismissive. Many described the answers as evasive and inadequate for victims who have waited years for clarity.

At the same time, political analysts say the depositions widened partisan gaps. Republicans have focused on the Clintons’ connection to Epstein, while Democrats have pointed to scrutiny of other public figures with their own links to Epstein’s circle.

Bill Clinton’s Record of Controversies Involving Women

This moment also revived attention on Bill Clinton’s long history of allegations involving women, including repeated denials that later collided with new facts or admissions.

Some of the most talked-about episodes include:

Monica Lewinsky affair (1995 to 1997): Clinton initially denied having a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” He later acknowledged an improper relationship under oath. The House impeached him in 1998 on perjury and obstruction charges, although the Senate acquitted him.
Paula Jones lawsuit: In 1994, Arkansas state employee Paula Jones accused Clinton of sexual harassment tied to his time as governor. He settled the case out of court for $850,000 in 1998.
Juanita Broaddrick’s allegation: Broaddrick said Clinton raped her in 1978. Clinton denied the claim through representatives.
Kathleen Willey and Gennifer Flowers: Willey alleged Clinton groped her in the Oval Office. Flowers said she had a long-term affair with him. Both claims became part of the wider scrutiny during his presidency.

Because of this history, critics say Clinton has a pattern of denial followed by partial acknowledgment. As a result, they compare his old responses to his current statements about Epstein.

Where This Fits in the Wider Epstein Case

Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while he awaited trial on federal sex trafficking charges. Before his death, he built relationships with influential people across politics, business, and entertainment. Since then, document releases, including flight logs and photographs, have kept the Clintons in the headlines. Still, no evidence has surfaced that links them to criminal conduct.

The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer (R-KY), has issued subpoenas to several people, including the Clintons. The stated goal is to map Epstein’s network and review how government agencies handled related cases. Depending on who’s speaking, the probe has been described as a “serious investigation” or a “clown show.”

Bill Clinton said he cooperated to help prevent future abuse. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton framed the process as politically driven.

The Public Response, and What Comes Next

The depositions quickly dominated news coverage, and social media seized on the Clintons’ wording. Supporters say the couple is being singled out without proof of wrongdoing. Critics say the testimonies reflect how powerful people avoid accountability.

Transcripts and video from the depositions are expected to come out, and the argument is likely to grow louder once they do. For many Americans, the latest chapter keeps the same questions alive: who knew what, who looked away, and why it took so long to get answers tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.

Related News:

Megyn Kelly Slams Hillary Clinton For Extraordinary Hypocrisy

Politics

Calls Mount to Expel Rep. Ilhan Omar from Congress

Published

4 days ago

February 28, 2026

VORNews

WASHINGTON, D.C. – After President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech on February 24, 2026, some Republican lawmakers and conservative voices have renewed calls to expel Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from Congress.

The push follows Ilhan Omar’s loud interruptions during the address, which critics say crossed a line and disrespected the chamber. Omar and her supporters, however, say the outbursts were a form of protest against policies they believe cause real harm.

The night’s clash has reopened a familiar fight in Washington: how far can protest go inside Congress before it becomes misconduct? At the same time, it has added fresh fuel to an already tense and divided House.

What Happened During the State of the Union?

Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress included sharp moments, especially when he turned to immigration and border security. During key parts of the address, Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) shouted objections from the floor. Eyewitnesses and video clips show Omar yelling words such as “liar” and “murderer” as Trump discussed immigration enforcement and referenced incidents involving Somali-American communities in Minnesota.

When Omar interrupted, the loudest moments came as Trump spoke about alleged fraud tied to Somali immigrants and about deaths involving federal agents. Later, Omar said she spoke up to point out what she views as the administration’s role in the deaths of two constituents.
Omar’s guest was removed and arrested: The situation escalated when Omar’s guest, Aliya Rahman, was arrested by U.S. Capitol Police after standing during the address. Police cited “unlawful conduct” and disruption, and they said guests are told that demonstrations are not allowed. Reports also say Rahman is autistic and has shoulder injuries, and that officers warned her before removing her.
Trump answered in the moment: Trump paused and criticized the heckling, calling Democrats “crazy.” He also aimed a direct remark at Omar, telling her, “You should be ashamed.”

In a post-speech interview on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Omar said she didn’t regret what happened. “I do not [have regrets], and I think many people look at that moment when the president says, ‘It is our responsibility to protect Americans,’ and he does not acknowledge the fact that two Americans… were killed,” she said. Omar framed her interruptions as a reminder that policy choices can have life-and-death effects.

Backlash Builds, With Fresh Demands for Expulsion

The interruptions drew quick condemnation from Republicans and conservative media. The next day, Trump posted at length on TruthSocial, attacking Omar and Tlaib as “Low IQ” and calling them “crooked and corrupt politicians.” He also suggested they should be sent “back from where they came, as fast as possible,” echoing earlier remarks that have brought him criticism.

Because Omar is a U.S. citizen, deportation is not a legal option. Still, the comments helped drive online talk about other punishments, including censure or even expulsion.

Republicans call for action: Several House Republicans backed some form of discipline. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, posted that Omar’s conduct embarrassed Congress and argued for expulsion to restore order.
Conservative media turns up the volume: Fox News and prominent social media accounts pushed the story. Commentator Trish Regan shared a Facebook post about “new calls” to censure Omar and Tlaib after the State of the Union clash. In the replies, some commenters went further and asked for expulsion.
Public reaction splits fast: Videos of the incident spread on YouTube and other platforms, drawing angry comments demanding Omar’s removal. Meanwhile, supporters defended her right to object, saying political speech should not be punished simply because it’s uncomfortable.

Expulsion is difficult. It takes a two-thirds vote in the House, and Congress has used it only five times in U.S. history, usually for severe misconduct such as treason or corruption. Critics of the expulsion push say Omar’s behavior may have been disruptive, but it doesn’t meet that standard. They also warn that it could create a new way to silence opponents.

Omar’s Earlier Controversies and Long-Running Claims of Anti-Semitism

Omar has faced removal talk before. Since entering Congress in 2018, she has drawn intense scrutiny, including repeated accusations of anti-Semitism tied to comments about Israel and pro-Israel lobbying. In 2019, her remarks triggered bipartisan criticism and helped lead to a House resolution condemning hate.

2019 tweets: Omar’s “all about the Benjamins” phrase and comments about dual loyalties brought claims that she used anti-Semitic stereotypes. She apologized, while also saying she still wanted to criticize Israeli policy.
2021 comments: Omar compared the U.S. and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban, which prompted backlash, including criticism from Democratic leaders.
A debate that never stops: Allies describe Omar as outspoken on progressive causes, including Palestinian rights. Opponents say her statements cross into anti-Semitism. Groups such as the Anti-Defamation League have called for accountability, though past efforts to remove her have not succeeded.

While the State of the Union dispute centered on immigration, it revived these older arguments. Some conservatives claim the outburst fits a larger “anti-American” pattern, and some also repeat the anti-Semitism charge, even though Israel was not the focus of the speech. Omar has repeatedly denied anti-Semitic intent and says her criticism targets policy, not identity.

Democrats Push Back, Warning of Political Payback

Many Democrats have defended Omar and described the expulsion talk as partisan retaliation, especially against minority lawmakers. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) called the rhetoric “divisive and unhelpful” and urged lawmakers to focus on policy fights instead of personal attacks.

Omar calls for scrutiny of the arrest: In a press release, Omar demanded an investigation into Rahman’s arrest. She described the response as heavy-handed and said it sends a chilling signal about democratic rights.
Progressives rally around her: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) posted support, arguing that pushing back on lies is part of democracy, not disrespect. Groups such as Justice Democrats echoed that message.
What could come next: Republicans could try censure, which only needs a simple majority. That path looks more realistic than expulsion unless Democrats cross party lines. The episode also reflects a wider breakdown in House decorum, similar to Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during a 2009 address.

Political strategists say the fight may fire up both sides before the midterms. Republicans can use it to brand Democrats as extreme, while Democrats can use it to energize voters against what they see as racism and Islamophobia.

Can Congress Actually Expel Omar?

The Constitution gives each chamber power to discipline members under Article I, Section 5. Still, expulsion remains rare, and most rule violations lead to lesser penalties. Legal experts often note that while House rules demand order during major speeches, Congress typically reserves expulsion for the most serious cases.

Past examples:
- 1861: The House expelled three members for supporting the Confederacy.
- 1980: Rep. Michael Myers was expelled after the Abscam bribery scandal.
- More recent attempts: Efforts to expel Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in 2021 over inflammatory statements did not pass.

Free speech adds another layer of conflict. The First Amendment complicates any punishment tied to speech, although it does not give members unlimited freedom inside House proceedings. An ethics review is possible, but Omar’s allies also point to Trump’s own history of inflammatory language and call the outrage selective.

Social Media Erupts as Hashtags Take Over

The argument quickly moved online. #ExpelOmar trended on X (formerly Twitter) and drew millions of impressions as users posted clips, reactions, and calls for discipline. Conservatives praised Trump’s response, while progressives circulated Omar’s interview and defended her actions.

Common reactions online:
- Pro-expulsion: Posts calling Omar an embarrassment and demanding removal.
- Anti-expulsion: Posts arguing that speaking up against power should not be treated as a crime, often using #StandWithOmar.
- In-between voices: Others urged both parties to cool it, saying civility in Congress keeps getting worse.

Polling after the address shows a wide partisan split. A Rasmussen survey reported that 52% of Republicans support expulsion, while 12% of Democrats agree. Independents landed in the middle, with 35% in favor.

What This Could Mean for Congress Next

As lawmakers review Rahman’s arrest and draft possible resolutions, the fallout could shape how Congress handles both guests and members during major events. Some lawmakers may push tougher enforcement, while others may resist, warning that stricter rules can turn into political weapons.

For Omar, one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, the episode highlights the pressure minority members often face in high-profile fights. She has weathered past controversies, but continued attacks could still shape her 2026 campaign in Minnesota’s 5th District.

At a time when the country argues over immigration, protest, and political norms, this State of the Union clash shows how fragile trust has become. The coming weeks will likely bring more motions, more headlines, and more hard feelings, with little sign that either side plans to back down.

Politics

CNN’s Harry Enten Calls the 2028 Democratic Primary a “Clown Car”

Published

6 days ago

February 26, 2026

VORNews

ATLANTA, Georgia – CNN data analyst Harry Enten delivered a blunt take on the early 2028 Democratic presidential primary. On air, he called the field a “downright clown car” and a “total mess.”

Early polling shows a tight pack, with no one breaking 25% and several names sitting within the margin of error. That sparked a lively discussion about whether Democrats are sliding into a fight between progressives and moderates, and what the rise of figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani could mean for the party’s next era.

All of this lands at an uneasy moment for Democrats. The party is still dealing with the fallout from the 2024 losses, and many voters see no clear next leader. At the same time, Democrats are preparing for the 2026 midterms while facing a Republican Party energized under President Donald Trump. As a result, these early signs of a fractured primary could make unity harder when it matters most.

Polls Show a Crowded Race With No Breakout

Recent surveys suggest Democratic voters are spread out across the field. A Yahoo/YouGov poll from February 2025 showed a close contest among likely contenders:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom leads at 19%, helped by his national profile and messaging on issues like climate change and abortion rights.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris sits at 18%, backed by experience but followed by doubts tied to 2024.
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg pulls 13%, with support from many moderates drawn to his pragmatic style.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) gets 12%, reflecting continued strength among progressives focused on economic justice and climate policy.

None of these candidates clears 25%, a level Enten pointed to as a common marker for an early front-runner. Because many polls carry a margin of error of around 3 to 4 points, the top tier looks more like a statistical tie than a settled race. In other words, Democratic voters haven’t rallied around a single option.

Other polling and commentary reinforce the same theme. CNN’s data team has also highlighted how unusual it is to see an open primary with no dominant figure at this stage. In past cycles, such as 2000, 2008, and 2016, big names like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had built clearer leads by this point. This time, name recognition and money may not translate into early momentum.

Enten’s On-Air Take: “Total Mess”

On “CNN News Central” with host John Berman, Enten walked through the numbers and used sharp language to describe what he saw. “Yeah, they’re all running and this is just a downright clown car at this point on the Democratic side,” he said, pointing to how tightly packed the field is.

He also stressed how rare it is for no one to top 25% two years out. While Newsom held a small edge, Enten argued that Newsom also carries a “flailing” image, tied to California’s struggles with homelessness and high taxes. He added that Harris has “baggage” from her time as vice president, while Buttigieg and AOC signal very different paths for the party that could keep the base split.

Enten summed it up with another jab: “This is just a total clown car. It is a total mess. There is no clear frontrunner at this particular point on the Democratic side. Who the heck knows who the nominee is going to be in two years?”

The moment moved fast online. Clips spread on X (formerly Twitter), where both critics and supporters of the party debated what it said about Democratic strength. A post from a conservative account picked up traction, using the segment to mock Democratic disarray.

Panel Response: Jokes, Then Real Worry

The panel’s reaction mixed laughter with concern. Berman chuckled at the “clown car” line, then pushed the group to look at what the numbers might mean. Other guests offered different reads on the same data.

One panelist sounded upbeat, arguing that a wide-open field can boost interest and turnout. They framed it as normal competition that could pull in different groups of voters. Another guest saw danger ahead, warning that a long, bitter primary could drain money and time, while also turning off independents.

Soon, the conversation shifted to the party’s internal split. Moderates defended figures like Newsom and Buttigieg as safer bets in swing areas. Progressives pointed to AOC’s strength with younger voters and many voters of color. Even when the room laughed, the tension underneath was hard to miss.

Progressive vs. Moderate Split, and Why It Feels Bigger Now

Democrats have dealt with factions for decades, but the current divide looks sharper. Progressives want bigger moves on climate, health care, and wealth gaps. Moderates prefer smaller steps, arguing that bold messaging can backfire in close races.

Several pressure points keep coming up:

Policy fights: Progressives push for major programs like Medicare for All, while moderates tend to support narrower changes.
Electability arguments: Supporters of Buttigieg and other centrists say they can win swing voters. Critics say that the approach can fall flat with the base.
2026 primary battles: Progressive challengers are stepping into key races, which puts party splits on display. For example, Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s bid in Texas has drawn GOP attention, with Republicans claiming Democrats are “in shambles.”

Gallup has also tracked movement in Democratic attitudes. One recent Gallup poll found 45% of Democrats want the party to become more moderate, up from 34% in 2021. That shift shows the tug-of-war inside the coalition. If leaders can’t calm it down, the party could lose ground in 2026 and enter 2028 even weaker.

In a podcast episode titled “Can Liberals, Progressives & Moderates Unite to Beat Republicans in November , and 2028?”, guests discussed how fragile the coalition feels. Many agreed that costs and affordability unite Democrats, yet they disagree on the fix. Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has argued for a class-first message focused on jobs, wages, and everyday costs, rather than culture fights.

Rising Names: AOC and Zohran Mamdani Point to a Shift

The growing profile of younger progressives like AOC and Zohran Mamdani signals a possible change in who drives the party’s future. AOC, now 38, has grown from a 2018 upset winner into a major national figure, boosted by strong media skills and a clear message on economics and climate.

Mamdani, a 34-year-old New York State Assembly member and democratic socialist, represents the next wave. First elected in 2020, he has backed policies like rent control, police reform, and Palestinian rights, and he has often challenged establishment Democrats. His rise also highlights the expanding influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in some areas.

Together, they represent a bigger progressive push:

Stronger pull with younger voters: They focus on issues such as student debt relief and environmental justice.
More direct attacks on party power: Mamdani’s critiques of corporate influence echo themes AOC has used for years.
More presence in the national talk: Their inclusion in polls shows progressives aren’t on the sidelines.

Still, critics argue this trend could push away swing voters. After the 2024 losses, some Democrats blamed progressive positions on topics like immigration and crime. Supporters answer that progressive candidates keep winning in many blue districts, and they see that as proof that the message works where turnout matters.

A Familiar Story, Even if the Stakes Feel New

Today’s clash fits a long pattern. Democrats have housed competing groups since the New Deal, with shifting alliances between liberals, moderates, and conservatives. The civil rights era broke the party’s old Southern power base, and later decades elevated more centrist leaders such as Bill Clinton.

More recently, the Obama years ended with a party split between Clinton-style pragmatism and Sanders-style populism. Democrats united behind Joe Biden in 2020, but that unity didn’t erase the underlying strain. After 2024, the arguments returned louder, and the lack of an incumbent for 2028 makes the power struggle even clearer.

A FiveThirtyEight analysis has noted that House Democrats now include roughly similar numbers of moderates and progressives. That balance could swing either way, depending on the next few elections. History also offers cautionary tales. For some Democrats, the 1972 McGovern campaign still stands as a warning about moving too far left and paying for it later.

What a Wide-Open Field Means for Party Leadership

A messy primary creates real risks. Without a clear leader, donors and endorsements can scatter. That can stretch the race out and leave the eventual nominee bruised. Party leaders, including DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, could face pressure to keep the contest from turning into a damaging brawl. Some also talk about changes like superdelegate rules or stronger party platforms, although those debates come with their own baggage.

At the same time, an open contest can help the party. A stronger nominee can emerge after real testing. Some Democrats see figures like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro or Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly as possible unifiers. Progressives, on the other hand, argue Democrats need bolder economic plans to compete with Trump’s populist appeal, including an “abundance agenda” tied to housing and energy.

Some analysts, including voices at the American Enterprise Institute, warn the internal split could hurt Democrats in 2028 if it stays unresolved. One strategist summed up the moderate case this way: being moderate means taking popular positions and breaking with party habits when needed.

What Comes Next for Democrats

With the 2026 midterms approaching, Democrats need a clearer message and fewer internal fights. They also need to rebuild support with working-class voters, especially on costs, wages, and housing. The rise of AOC and Mamdani hints at a stronger leftward pull, while moderates keep warning that swing voters decide national elections.

Enten’s “clown car” line may stick because it captures the mood. Democrats face a hard reality: they can’t afford years of public infighting while Trump’s coalition stays energized. A truce, even a fragile one, may be the price of staying competitive.