Tuesday, June 30, 2026
AI Hallucinations Are Exploding In U.S. Courts, New Study Finds
A new analysis from Laine AI suggests that AI-related errors in U.S. court filings are no longer isolated incidents but a rapidly expanding trend. Drawing on hundreds of confirmed cases, the study finds that courts are seeing a growing number of filings containing fabricated citations, inaccurate legal authorities, and other AI-generated mistakes as lawyers and self-represented litigants increasingly incorporate generative AI into their work.
The increase has been dramatic. According to the report, documented AI-related filing errors climbed from just 25 cases in early 2025 to 249 by the fourth quarter of that year, with the pace continuing into 2026. First-quarter 2026 data nearly matched the entire final quarter of 2025 despite covering only part of the year, underscoring how quickly the problem is accelerating.
Geographically, a relatively small number of states account for a disproportionate share of the incidents. California leads the nation with 97 recorded cases, followed by New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. Together, those five states represent roughly 40% of all documented AI-related legal filing errors, suggesting that jurisdictions with higher AI adoption are also experiencing more frequent courtroom mistakes.
The study also identifies several fast-growing hotspots. Florida experienced one of the sharpest increases, jumping from just one recorded incident in 2024 to 28 during 2025. Meanwhile, states including Washington, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Nevada, Indiana, Oregon, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Illinois all began reporting meaningful numbers of AI-related filing errors after previously recording none, indicating that the issue is spreading well beyond a handful of early adopters.
Courts have responded with a wide range of sanctions. California has imposed more than $256,000 in monetary penalties tied to AI-related filing errors, accounting for roughly one-third of all fines identified in the study. However, the likelihood of receiving severe sanctions varies considerably by jurisdiction. Louisiana, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Georgia imposed serious penalties in a much larger percentage of cases than states with higher overall incident counts, highlighting significant differences in judicial approaches.
Perhaps the study's most notable finding is that most AI-related filing mistakes do not originate with attorneys. More than 60% of the documented incidents involved pro se litigants representing themselves, while lawyers accounted for roughly 37% of the cases. The authors suggest that individuals without formal legal training may be relying more heavily on AI tools without adequate review, increasing the likelihood of errors reaching the courtroom.
When AI tools were identified, ChatGPT was the most frequently named platform, though the overwhelming majority of filings either failed to specify which AI system had been used or only implied AI assistance. ChatGPT appeared in 48 documented cases, while tools such as Microsoft Copilot, Claude, Google Gemini, Perplexity, Lexis AI, and Westlaw's AI products were mentioned only occasionally. Because nearly 90% of filings did not clearly identify the software involved, the report notes that assigning responsibility to any particular platform remains difficult.
The most common errors involved outright fabrication. More than half of all recorded AI-related mistakes consisted of nonexistent cases, citations, or legal authorities presented as genuine. Misrepresenting actual legal precedent accounted for another quarter of incidents, while fabricated quotations from real cases represented roughly one-fifth. California, New York, and Texas consistently ranked among the states with the highest numbers across each category.
The report also found that over 80% of AI-related hallucinations occurred in case-law citations rather than statutes, regulations, or supporting exhibits. Because legal arguments often depend on accurately citing precedent, fabricated or inaccurate case law can undermine the credibility of an entire filing and expose litigants to sanctions. The authors conclude that AI can remain a valuable legal research tool, but only if every citation, quotation, and legal authority is independently verified before being submitted to a court.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ai-hallucinations-are-exploding-us-courts-new-study-finds
'Iran to act unilaterally on Hormuz if Oman doesn't assist'
Iran will act independently if Oman is not willing to cooperate on the Strait of Hormuz management mechanism, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told the state broadcaster on Monday.
Gharibabadi said that Iran notified Oman that transit routes through the Strait of Hormuz should be redefined, adding that the two countries will hold technical consultations on the matter in the coming days.
The official added that Tehran will seek to block any vessel attempting to cross the strait via routes not authorized by Iran.
Alito slams birthright decision as ‘serious mistake’
Justice Samuel Alito expressed discontent with the Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision to strike down the Trump administration’s restrictions on birthright citizenship, calling the ruling both “one of the most important decisions” in the court’s history and “a serious mistake” in a dissenting opinion.
The high court ruled 6-3 that an executive order signed by President Trump on Day 1 of his second term violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees automatic citizenship for almost all children who are born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.
The Trump administration has sought to restrict citizenship to children with at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status.
Alito warned in his dissent the ruling could have “grotesque results,” including an encouragement of “birth tourism,” and national security ramifications.
“If the Fourteenth Amendment required these results, the country would have to live with them or amend the Constitution,” he wrote. “But the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country.
“In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future,” he continued.
Alito accused the majority opinion of relying “on precedent that glosses the text” of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and that their argument “fails on textualist grounds.”
The conservative justice specifically pointed to the 14th Amendment’s reference to a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction of,” arguing that the court’s majority failed to consider issues of dual citizenship.
“A great many persons who are born here to illegal immigrant parents fail this test because at birth they are automatically made nationals of their parents’ native country and, as a result, incur duties to that country,” Alito wrote. “This means that they are ‘subject to a foreign power’ and are thus not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Alito also cited “birth tourism” in his dissent, which refers to the practice of foreign pregnant women who travel to the U.S. to obtain citizenship for their children. Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), have used this argument to push for further restrictions on birthright citizenship.
“Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way,” Alito wrote. “Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett — a Trump appointee — and the court’s three liberal justices.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Alito all dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh disagreed with the court’s ruling, but he voted to block the administration’s executive order under federal law.
Thomas: Birthright decision ‘devalues’ American citizenship
Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to strike down President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, contending the decision “devalues” American citizenship.
“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time,” Thomas, the longest-serving conservative currently on the bench, wrote in a 91-page dissent to the ruling upholding the 14th Amendment right. “The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”
Thomas did not read his dissent aloud from the bench.
His argument focused heavily on race and the interpretation of the term “domicile,” which is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause but has been historically understood to mean a person’s primary and permanent legal home.
“The Citizenship Clause was consistently interpreted not to apply to the children of foreign temporary visitors, who were by definition not domiciled in the United States,” Thomas reasoned. “Regardless of administration or party, the Federal Government for decades after ratification regularly denied claims to citizenship by children who were born in the United States but not domiciled here.”
He argued that the majority got its history wrong when it concluded that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be understood in the context of the “feudal” principle of allegiance in English common law, which was then codified as “not subject to any foreign power” in the Civil Rights Act.
He also contended the precedent established in the landmark 1989 Wong Kim Ark ruling should not extend to the children in the U.S. on foreign temporary visitors.
“The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” Thomas wrote. “In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”
He reasoned that because much of the application of Trump’s Day 1 executive order was “consistent with the original public meaning” of the clause in the 14th Amendment, it should have been upheld.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5947513-birthright-citizenship-clarence-thomas-dissent/
Heat can impact your medications and health
As summer temperatures rise, residents are taking precautions to stay cool. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning that extreme heat can also impact how medications work in the body, as well as damage the physical medications themselves.
According to the CDC, the interaction between certain medications and heat can lead to "potentially severe side effects."
Several common prescription and over-the-counter drugs can increase the risk of heat-related illnesses. These include diuretics, blood pressure medications, antihistamines and some psychiatric medications.
The CDC reports that these medications can contribute to heat sensitivity in a variety of ways. Some drugs, such as diuretics and ACE inhibitors, can suppress the sensation of thirst, making it harder for patients to realize they need water. Other medications, including certain antidepressants and allergy medications, can impair sweating and interfere with the central nervous system's ability to regulate body temperature.
Additionally, drugs that lower blood pressure can cause volume depletion. When combined with extreme heat, this reduces cardiac output and increases the risk of dizziness, fainting and falls. Dehydration from the heat can also reduce the body's ability to clear medications from its system, potentially leading to drug toxicity.
It is not just the body's reaction to the medication that is a concern; the heat can physically damage the drugs and delivery devices.
"Inhalers, for example, can burst in hot environments, such as car trunks on hot days," the CDC states.
Furthermore, EpiPens may malfunction or deliver less epinephrine when exposed to extreme heat. Medications that require refrigeration, such as insulin, can degrade and become less effective if left in the heat for prolonged periods.
Certain antibiotics and antifungal medications can also make the skin highly sensitive to the sun, leading to a sunburn-like rash. The CDC recommends patients on these medications use a broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher, avoid the sun when possible, and wear protective clothing and hats.
Health officials urge patients not to abruptly stop taking any prescribed medication without consulting their health care provider.
Instead, the CDC recommends patients review their medication lists with their doctors to identify any prescriptions that may amplify the risks of heat exposure. Patients and doctors should discuss a medication management plan for hot days, which may include adjusting dosages, altering fluid restrictions or planning for proper medication storage.
The CDC also advises patients to develop a power outage plan to ensure refrigerated medications and electric medical devices remain safe and functional during summer storms.
Anyone experiencing signs that the heat is interacting with their medications should seek a cool environment and contact a medical professional immediately. If you begin to experience symptoms of heat exhaustion or heat stroke, call 911.
Time To Stop Pretending That Migrants Are Entitled To Equal Citizenship
by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us
Yet another civil conflict is brewing this week as the Supreme Court tackles a number of foreign citizenship debates, including Temporary Protection Status (TPS) and Birthright Citizenship. The court has ruled that hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants residing in the US under TPS are no longer safe from mass deportations (a win). But, they have also ruled in favor of migrant anchor babies (a big loss).
Both issues deal with changing American perceptions on what is “constitutional” when it comes to foreign access to citizenship. The Supreme Court’s decisions aside, I find it mind boggling that this debate has been ongoing for so many decades. Frankly, foreigners should not have any citizenship rights under the constitution until they have demonstrated assimilation. Until that time, there should be a separate set of rules handling newcomers (and invaders).
When it comes to TPS and the Haitians, the leftists are raging. Despite this status supposedly being “temporary” (the Obama Administration originally claimed these people would only be in the US for 18 months), many of these foreign transplants have been enjoying the benefits of unearned American citizenship for 16 years or more. Yet, when Haitians protest the TPS decision, what flag do you see them flying? That’s right – They fly the Haitian flag, not the American flag. This tells us everything we need to know.
The liberal position on this issue is crystal clear: They believe that the constitution protects foreign migrants and their cultures from overt scrutiny. Meaning, foreigners don’t have to prove themselves worthy of citizenship, they get access regardless. Liberals also believe that it should be extremely difficult to remove migrants once they enter the country.
Keep in mind, this is the LIBERAL position. The woke position is much worse.
The radical left argues that western borders should not exist at all. For other countries, borders are fine. For the US and Europe, borders must be erased. Furthermore, they assert that the American economy must be treated as an open marketplace rather than a closed system. In other words, foreigners should be allowed to feed on the system whenever they please, transfer that wealth back to their third world hovels, and then come back for more.
The “empathetic” liberal position creates the foundation for the militant woke position. It’s rooted in a propaganda narrative created in the early 20th century: The claim that America’s entire identity is a “melting pot” of cultures and nationalities and that there is no original source identity. This false origin story was produced by New York socialists and it’s been spread by Hollywood for decades.
The famous poem called “The Colossus” imprinted on the Statue of Liberty is often used to elevate the melting pot myth. It was added in 1903, over 20 years after the statue was built. It’s author, Emma Lazarus, was a Zionist feminist with ties to numerous socialist movements. The fantasy of the melting pot of “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” was then popularized heavily in the 1960s and 1970s by far-left activist groups and the establishment media.
The melting pot is not our identity and never was. Historically speaking, America has always had a guarded relationship to immigration and we operated on “origin-based rules”. Meaning, Europeans from the north and west were welcomed, everyone else was limited. There was nothing wrong with this model.
America’s source identity is western civilization and European influence. There is no cultural melting pot.
The notion that the US is somehow legally required to accept everyone from everywhere regardless of their beliefs or background was not a thing until after the liberal era of the 1960s – 1990s. Until this time period, America had numerous regulations on who was allowed in. After the 1990s, the melting pot ideal became sacrosanct, as if it had always been a part of our constitutional legacy.
George Washington instituted the Naturalization Act of 1790 which restricted immigration to people mostly from European nations. John Adams instituted the Alien Friends Act 1798 which allowed the quick deportation of migrants found to be initiating civil disruption and sedition. He also enforced an extended probation period of 14 years before any migrant gained citizenship rights (instead of the original five year period).
Even Thomas Jefferson, who opposed the Alien Friends Act and had a highly liberal (and I would argue naive) ideal of America as an “open asylum for the oppressed”, supported some restrictions and regulations to immigration. It was a different time, but the rules still make sense today.
Teddy Roosevelt enforced the Immigrant Act of 1907, which banned the citizenship of any foreigners from cultures that practiced polygamy (which included Muslims) and focused on migration among groups that could easily assimilate into American society. Once again, this is perfectly acceptable and rational. There’s nothing wrong with enforcing logical standards.
Now, more than ever, we need such rules in place. Just because they were overturned once does not mean they can’t be brought back again as the conditions demand.
As far as the 1st Amendment is concerned, we’ve had exceptions to these protections when it comes to dangerous ideologies. For example, the US banned communist organization for decades, right up until the 1990s.
Why? Because the proliferation of communism will inevitably lead to the destruction of the same 1st Amendment rights that liberals claim to be protecting. Even in a republic, there are certain groups who cannot be allowed to exist because they represent a clear and present danger to the very framework that our country is built on. They are at war with our culture. To give citizenship to the barbarians at the gate is suicide.
By extension, one could argue that Muslim ideology is much like communism in that Muslims have a tendency to seek dominance and authoritarianism rather than integration. Their presence in the US is an obvious threat to the Bill of Rights. Therefore, we may have to make exceptions for them, just as we made exceptions for communism (globalism is also another important target for removal).
We can argue over the bureaucratic labyrinth that has been created to make expulsion of these groups difficult, but it doesn’t matter. Again, regardless of what the courts say, these people are not entitled to the same rights as natural born citizens, and we need to stop pretending as if they are owed something.
It is true that under current liberal precedents the constitution restricts the Federal Government from taking action to remove people based on identity, but this does not apply to the American public. If the government isn’t allowed to remove these threats, then make no mistake, the American people will eventually do it themselves. The film “Citizen Vigilante” is not fiction, it’s a warning. It’s wildly popular for a reason.
At the very least, the TPS decision shows that the Supreme Court is beginning to realize that it’s better to allow managed deportations than it is to drive the population to adopt vigilantism.
America has NEVER been a country of equal treatment for everyone all the time, and that’s because this is a foolish concept. The closer the Overton Window moves us towards multicultural equality the worse things get for everyone. As we’ve witnessed over the past decade, some groups tend to sabotage everything they touch. They don’t view American life as a privilege, they see it as something that can be pillaged, and liberal movements are enabling this behavior.
There are two key pillars to the liberal argument that need to be abandoned before it’s too late:
First, that immigration is some kind of sacred duty of the American people. It is our “historical identity” and a tradition that must not be forsaken. They suggest that migrants, as if by magic, become Americans as soon as they cross the border or drop a newborn child on the soil, and thus they must be given all the opportunities and legal protections afforded to true citizens.
Second, the constitutional laws in place are liberal in the application of rights, even for foreigners fresh off the boat. In other words, we’re violating the constitution by making exceptions.
This is simply not so. History shows us that logical exceptions have always been made. Why, for example, is a migrant allowed to slip across our border illegally, squeeze out a kid on this side of the line and by default that kid becomes a citizen? It makes no sense and almost no other country in the world allows it.
The absolutist vision of the constitutional shield might be sacred for people who are born and raised in America under American ideals and by American parents. This does not, however, apply to foreign invaders with intentions of exploiting loopholes and ransacking the nation while maintaining loyalties to their home countries.
Hell, I would even argue that exceptions can and should be made for radical communists. We had it right in the 1950s. And the answer is simple: Deport them all.
Is a group of people seeking to sabotage western civilization? Deport them. Are they acting like parasites feeding off subsidies while giving nothing in return? Deport them. Does a group have a religion or ideology that is clearly antithetical to western values? Deport them.
And what about the argument that we must accommodate refugees from war-torn regions; that we must provide safe haven? No, we don’t.
Since when are we not allowed to be selective in who we help? No other country in the world is treated with the same expectations as the US when it comes to immigration. When did it become our responsibility to fix every problem in the world? This is a role that was foisted on us by a century of progressive propaganda.
Maybe Haitian refugees need to be sent back home to fix their own problems in their own country? Maybe the only way these places will ever be reformed is if the US stops acting as a steam valve for the discontented? Maybe anchor babies need to be shipped off with their illegal migrant parents, instead of letting them all stay in the country on a technicality?
Is it a slippery slope? Could these same rules be turned back on American conservatives and patriots? No, because who would be left to use them against us? This is not a call for an end to constitutional rights. Nor is it a call for an end to all immigration. Rather, it is plea for nuance, sanity and selectivity.
We used to have more practical rules for these problems, and I guarantee, the Founding Fathers would be FAR more aggressive in enforcing those rules than we are today. Some people do not deserve the same rights as US citizens and some people do not deserve the same access as US citizens.
It’s okay to admit it. This is a fact that we need to accept as a society. We need to stop the benevolent liberal charade which is designed to make us feel obliged to the rest of the world.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/its-time-stop-pretending-migrants-are-entitled-equal-citizenship
Dems Being Attacked By The Woke Mob They Helped Create
If modern history has taught us anything, it's that one should never align one's self with zealots. They might be useful for creating momentum and pushing your agenda forward at the time, but eventually they will deem you inadequate to their standards, because frankly, no one is actually capable of meeting their standards.
The political left's shift into radical communism (and radical Islam) is accelerating rapidly, with a number of incumbent and "centrist" Democrat politicians being unseated by "Democratic Socialists" in the primaries in states like New York. Meanwhile, the far-left is taking over management in deep blue cities across the US.
Rumors suggest that the party is heavily divided and they are unsuccessfully trying to hide it. Zohran Mamdani's ascension to mayor of NYC was the canary in the coal mine and a sign of things to come. There is a rising tide of militant woke fanatics using the Democrat Party as a vehicle to gain access to positions of political power, and the Dems happily invited them in.
And, with any socialist revolution, those who are viewed as moderates or "less revolutionary" are always targeted for expulsion (or extinction) once the zealots gain enough influence.
Case-in-point, California State Senator Scott Wiener, perhaps one of the most radical (and some would argue one of the most detestable) Democrat politicians in office today, is not safe from the woke mob. Wiener has operated as an agent for LGBT activism and it's the central pillar of his career. Yet, during a trans pride march in San Francisco last week he was accosted by a gaggle of crazies demanding he leave because of his past support for Israel.
After extensive pressure from pro-Islam activists, Wiener shifted his position on Gaza in January and explicitly labeled the situation a "genocide". It didn't matter. Because Wiener is Jewish he is considered guilty by default. It's incredible how quickly the very people that accuse conservatives of being "Nazis" end up acting just like Nazis.
Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer received similar treatment recently. After he joined a pride march in NYC, the boos were hard to ignore and the cheers were thin.
This response from leftist crowds is becoming more frequent as they turn their sights on the Democrat establishment. The party is changing from the inside and leaders like Schumer are no longer considered extreme enough. The progressives want to burn the system (and their ideological opponents) to the ground, and Schumer is part of that system.
Conservatives might view these divisions among Democrats as predictable, but also as a welcome advantage. Seeing people like Scott Wiener and Chuck Schumer get browbeaten by a communist struggle session is indeed hilarious. The cancel culture they avidly supported over the past decade smells their blood in the water this time, and the feeding frenzy is circling closer.
There is, however, the long term problem of an increasingly militant leftist movement operating in the midst of an American society seeking order and sanity. Once the Democrat Party officially becomes the Democratic Socialist Party, any chances a peaceful solution will disappear. Some would argue that US politics already crossed that line a long time ago.
Trump adds Wisconsin, Louisiana to disaster relief list
United States President Donald Trump added Wisconsin and Louisiana to the list of states receiving federal disaster relief funding to restore damages caused by natural disasters.
He announced on Truth Social that Wisconsin will receive $22.6 million, while Louisiana was granted $8.6 million in aid.
The two states join his earlier announcement, which included approvals for Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, Idaho and Missouri.
https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Trump-adds-2-states-to-disaster-relief-list/66606920
CODEPINK makes progress to bring antisemitic politics into K–12 classrooms
CODEPINK, the activist group known for anti-war protests, is now turning its attention to American schools. And that should alarm every parent.
On June 16, 17, and 18, CODEPINK held three workshops targeting K–12 education. The sessions laid out ways to remove ADL materials and partnerships from public schools, challenge Holocaust education, pressure school boards, mobilize teachers and parents, and create high school activist clubs.
The goal was clear: bring CODEPINK’s politics into classrooms and shape what children are taught.
The most disturbing part is how openly the workshops framed Jewish institutions and Holocaust education as the enemy. The CODEPINK site said the workshop aimed to teach attendees “how the ADL uses Holocaust education to justify state violence and silence the Palestinian movement.”
That is not a small accusation. It tells teachers, parents, and students to view Holocaust education as propaganda. It tells them to distrust one of the country’s best-known Jewish civil-rights organizations. It turns Jewish memory into something suspicious.
Holocaust education exists because students need to understand what antisemitism is, how it spreads, and where it can lead. Presenting it as a political weapon weakens one of the clearest tools schools have to fight anti-Jewish hate.
Marcy Winograd, campaign coordinator for CODEPINK’s “Drop the ADL” campaign, made the strategy even clearer. She called for “collective civil disobedience on the part of teachers,” including “refusing to take down the Palestinian flag” and “just outright refusal.”
Teachers have enormous influence over children. When an activist group encourages them to resist school rules and bring political messaging into classrooms, parents should be deeply concerned.
The workshops also pushed student activism. A high school teacher and sponsor of an SJP club said, “Any action we take, doesn’t matter what the action is, it's in the right direction if it's for Palestinian rights and freedoms. Period. End of story. Doesn’t matter.”
No teacher should tell students that “any action” is acceptable if it serves a political cause. Schools are supposed to teach responsibility, judgment, and respect for others. They should not train students to believe that activism excuses everything.
Winograd also described Holocaust education as “teaching teachers how to teach the Holocaust to legitimize the necessity of a Jewish ethnostate and to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.” She encouraged teachers to resist and challenge participation in Holocaust education training.
The target is clear: weaken trust in Holocaust education, weaken trust in Jewish organizations, and push schools toward CODEPINK’s political worldview.
This is how antisemitism can enter schools under the cover of curriculum reform.
It does not always arrive with slurs. Sometimes it arrives as a lesson plan. Sometimes it appears as a workshop for teachers. Sometimes it is framed as “liberation,” “equity,” or “student voice.” But when the message teaches children to view Jewish institutions as manipulative and Holocaust education as propaganda, the result is dangerous.
Jewish students already face rising hostility in American schools and colleges. They are asked to answer for political events they did not cause. They are excluded from social spaces. They are pressured to distance themselves from parts of their identity. They are told that Jewish safety concerns are really attempts to silence others. CODEPINK’s workshops would make that climate worse.
Parents should know when outside activist groups are trying to influence what their children are taught. School boards should know when teachers are being encouraged to defy policies. Jewish families should know when Holocaust education is being attacked as propaganda.
Students can learn about difficult issues. They can learn about suffering, conflict, history, discrimination, and human rights. But they should not be fed one-sided narratives that teach suspicion toward Jewish institutions or undermine Holocaust education.
CODEPINK’s campaign is dangerous because it targets children before they are old enough to understand the complexity of what they are being taught.
If these ideas take root in elementary and high schools, they will not stop there. They will follow students onto college campuses, into student organizations, into protests, and into public life.
Parents, school boards, and education leaders should take this seriously before CODEPINK’s agenda spreads any further.
Anna Miller is the spokesperson for Protect Our Campus, a non-partisan organization documenting extremism, antisemitism, and institutional failures in education and campus spaces.