Teaching Critical Financial Literacy: Why Graduation Requirements and Mandated Courses Are Not the Answer

Above: A teacher of a personal finance or financial literacy course at a charter school in Washington, D.C.

Measles is on the rise and fewer people are getting vaccinated in U.S. Should we have students take one less science class and instead mandate a course on vaccination literacy?

Artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to disrupt our economy and social environment. Should we have students take one less math course and instead mandate an AI education class?

Cell phones and other screens are negatively impacting literacy rates. Should we have students take one less English language arts class and instead mandate a screen time management course?

These solutions may sound absurd for their respective problems. Not every problem can be solved by a student taking a course, especially when the cause is mostly systemic rather than individual. The solution is instead actually fixing the underlying problem.

Yet, some people and groups are proposing this: Since many Americans have accrued significant debt and struggle to manage their household expenses, we should have all students take one less social studies course and instead mandate a financial literacy class.

While this suggestion may seem like common sense, the problem is much more complicated and mandating some types of financial literacy courses may actually make matters worse. 

In this post, I will explain why financial literacy lessons can be helpful, but only if they are critical, and show how most financial literacy graduation requirements are being pushed by individuals and groups without appropriate expertise and often with ulterior motives, and argue that mandates of financial literacy courses are deeply problematic.  

Above: A map of state requirements related to financial literacy/personal finance courses (National Association of State Boards of Education).

Financial literacy (sometimes also called personal finance) courses are increasingly taught in many school districts. Currently, over 30 states require financial literacy courses for graduation (my home state of Massachusetts is not one of them, but there has long been a push here and several districts already require the courses). Why is that problematic? 

First, these courses typically have a heavy emphasis on individual economic responsibility, which is then positioned as being able to save individuals from unfair economic systems. I will not spend much time here explaining this point, as Hyung Nam has an excellent piece in Rethinking Schools that everyone should read. He argued:

These curricula rest on the neoclassical economic paradigm that centers individual choices in the market, which is supposed to be minimally regulated — to be free and efficient. The problem is that many financial literacy curricula ultimately blame individuals for systemic problems, reinforcing an assumption that our capitalist political economy is a meritocracy, and that people exploited and oppressed must have a deficit of knowledge, intelligence, morality, or discipline — as if people become millionaires by skipping lattes to invest in stocks.  

Hyung Nam also highlighted that these courses gained much of their popularity after the 2008 global financial meltdown, which was a convenient time to avoid critically examining financial institutions (no major corporate leader has ever been charged for the many financial institution crimes that occurred during that period) while also blaming consumer choices for the collapse of mortgage markets. Certainly, no course could ever substitute for either the prosecution of financial crimes or the legislation of banking-related consumer protections. He also argued that most financial literacy programs seem to target lower income students and students of color. Yet, there are structural reasons why those students tend to have more financial issues in life. Children with wealthier parents have more protection from bad economic decisions. Wealthier people often hire accountants and financial advisors to help them plan (maybe we should instead give every low-income person free fiduciary financial planning services?). In fact, one compelling study even showed that financial literacy courses had almost no impact on students' future savings or investment decisions. 

Instead of having students ask, "How can I make financial decisions that best benefit me?" This question does not acknowledge that most economic benefits are beyond an individual's control. A more helpful financial education curriculum would ask: "How do we advocate for a fairer economic system that benefits everyone?" Other questions to consider: Who is hoarding wealth, how does the system protect them, and how do we stop it? Critical financial literacy can teach about managing individual financial risk, but only alongside more structural understandings of the economy and economic inequality. It has students "question the role of finance in society, and that underscores the importance of representing civil society interests in financial regulation." Moves away from student as consumer to student as caring fellow citizen. It adds an important layer of criticality to economic understanding.

Second, while school is an excellent place for students to learn about budgeting, credit and interest, tax forms, and savings (perhaps college loans could be featured, as many students will need those to fund their university education), there are better ways to teach this than standalone financial literacy courses. This is already being done in many mathematics and social studies courses at the high school level. For example, when I was a teacher at Framingham High School in Massachusetts, we re-wrote a portion of our U.S. history curriculum's Great Depression unit to cover these key concepts (as well as basic micro and macroeconomics concepts). An entire year or half year course is not needed to teach some pretty basic financial concepts like those above. 

Plus, we have a more comprehensive course called economics, which examines both micro and macroeconomics, which generally includes personal finance, but go much deeper into these concepts (I want to also be clear that economics courses are not a silver bullet either). Moreover, I would argue that these economics courses should be taught with critical lenses on capitalism and free markets. There is significant research that shows that economic courses often problematic include uncritical and pro-free market ideological lenses. Students should certainly learn about conservative and neoliberal economic arguments, but those should not be treated as gospel or not be presented alongside progressive or social democratic economic alternatives. 

Above: Financial literacy courses have become such a fad that you can even find first grade lessons on Teachers Pay Teachers. I suppose have students start thinking early that they and their family's economic conditions are solely based on their individual economic choices.  

Brad Maguth recently published this article, which nicely outlines what a course that would truly prepare students for financial decisions based on a healthy skepticism would include. He writes that they should include:

1. Conducting critical structural analysis of financial systems

2. Leveraging learning through informed action 

He goes on to outline a potential course that would be where:

Learners consider how race, ethnicity, class, gender, zip code, and status intersect with earnings, earning potential, spending, and overall financial mobility and wellness. Moving beyond engaging in a critical analysis of existing socio-economic disparities, learners are also asked to consider and take informed action by proposing new local or federal policies or reforms to challenge existing    systemic injustices and to promote financial empowerment. 

Essentially, this would be an "action economics" course (much like how action civics courses have students learn civics by doing civics). 

Above: A March 2026 Wall Street Journal article that explains how more states are dropping economics class requirements as they add financial literacy course mandates.

 

Third, if you add another required high school graduation course, you will ultimately need to remove a requirement elsewhere, which will likely be a social studies course (which has already been marginalized by an overemphasis on mathematics and literacy). Several studies have show a

If financial literacy education was critical, relevant, and involved hands-on learning, I would probably be its biggest supporter. I am not alone. In fact, the National Endowment for Financial Education and the Council for Economic Education have long advocated for better alternatives to the standalone financial literacy course. I encourage you to read their position paper here. And, here is one more good read from Moritz Hütten and Matthias Thiemann on how current K-12 financial literacy programs are deeply problematic (and how to change that). 

Above: As a middle school student in Junior Achievement, I learned about how Smith & Wesson targeted their marketing toward women to sell more weapons.

Finally, I write this post as someone who has experienced a financial literacy course as a student. When I was a middle school student back in the early 1990s, I was required to participate in Junior Achievement. Frankly, I do not remember much of the course other than we spent too much time on balancing check books (something that is now easily done online) and made a plan to start a business. What was never covered was why some people were more and less wealthy. In fact, it was essentially free advertising for a local corporation I grew up in Western Massachusetts, where the gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson was a major employer. Each week, we had a representative teach us about the greatness of free markets. It also included him telling us all about the new plan to produce and sell a new lightweight plastic gun "for women," which my classmates heavily questioned as a bad idea ("Won't that pass through metal detectors?", he asked).

This anecdote leads to my final point. Who has been pushing financial literacy graduation requirements and course mandates? Two of the most powerful players influencing policy have been the Jump$tart Coalition (founded by financial service sector leaders in 1995 including William E. Odom, then-Chairman and CEO of the Ford Motor Credit Corporation and H. Randy Lively of the American Financial Services Association) and Next Gen Personal Finance (founded in 2014 and funded primarily by wealthy individuals, financial services and tech companies), as well as the trade group, the American Bankers Association (who actively lobbies for fewer banking regulations and consumer protections). This is a bit like the wolf teaching a class on hen house safety. 

Above: Many corporations have created financial literacy courses to meet the demand of state mandates, including some of the most predatory and lawbreaking financial institutions, such as Wells Fargo and Fifth Third Bank. 

Then there are the big banks, who also put out their own financial literacy curricula. What could be possibly wrong with a say Wells Fargo (who has their "Hands on Banking" curriculum) or Fifth Third (who has their Finance Academy curriculum) choosing what and how your children learn about personal finance? Fifth Third has engaged in numerous "predatory lending" practices related to car loans. Wells Fargo was making "fake accounts" for customers without their knowledge to increase profit. 

Above: Two images from PragerU's financial literacy course for high school students. 

At the same time, a number of rightwing political groups and organizations have also gotten into the financial literacy education game. For instance, PragerU (which is not a university or educational institution, but instead a conservative media content creation organization) has created their "Financial Literacy Cash Course" financial literacy program. This has become a state education agency-approved by several conservative learning states, including the state to my north, New Hampshire. New Hampshire Republicans claimed that PragerU videos were non-partisan. However, that is patently false. It only take a few minutes of viewing their videos to see that it is ideological conservative economic ideas discguised as financial literacy content (teaching students about conservative or liberal economic ideas would have a positive outcome; however, when partisan curriculum portrays opinions, often not supported by much evidence, it becomes merely propaganda).

I watched PragerU's financial literacy videos (so you don't have to-you're welcome!). What they focus on is teaching students that unregulated free markets make our economy great. Consumerism makes communities better. People's wealth is solely due to their personal choices (and strangely, it is an inidivudal's fault if they are fininacially scammed-so you better watch out!). And, of course, taxes are bad. They even have a video on student loans that frankly potrays college students as lacking intelligence (and implies most just use their loans to buy expensive clothes). Apparently, financial literacy is just being born into wealthier families, so you do not need to go into debt. PragerU doesn't teach financial literacy (which should have students critically examine the many individual and systematic factors that impact them). Rather, it reduces citizens to the role of consumers operating in what they portray as perfect free markets where good economic decisions will make them rich.

Above: Images from PragerU's "Financial Literacy Crash Course."

In closing, beware of anyone, including politicians, non-profit organizations, or even educators, who claim that financial literacy courses are the solution to individual economic struggles or a pancea for solving economic inequality. Of course, students should learn about personal finance, but as a part of a more comprehensive and critical economic education. This is being done in some places and certainly can be replicated by others. Yet, financial literacy course mandates will likely not address these issues, waste important resources and perhaps reduce more meaningful social studies courses, and allow the real causes of economic inequality to not be held accountable (especially when they may be writing some of these curricula).  

 

Teaching About Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Programs: An American Tradition

Above: Examples of the Trump administration's attempts to stop DEI programming; A federal website for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility that was removed (captured by Emily Scherer/The 19th) (top) and an announcement by the Department of Education that they are eliminating all DEI programs (bottom). 

Through a series of executive orders and federal actions (including the whitewashing of historical sites and parks), the Trump administration has waged a war on "DEI," or diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Republicans in Congress have submitted legislation to codify these bans on DEI programming. 

Yet, DEI is as old as the United States itself and these actions are thinly veiled attempts to embed racist, sexist, anti-queer, anti-trans, and anti-immigrant policies within the federal government and influence state governments to do the same. Attempts to ban DEI programs are unjust, anti-democratic, and, as I will show, un-American; teachers should approach it as such.

This post discusses the history of DEI programs in the United States (even if they were not always referred to by that specific acronym). It also discusses that these programs have always faced attacks from those who wanted to maintain oppression and the status quo, and offers ways that social studies teachers may use this history to better help their students understand the current anti-DEI political context. 

What Are DEI Programs?

Above: People of color report at much higher rates that DEI practices help them in the workplace (top) and a majority of Americans support DEI initiatives (bottom).  

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are established within organizations, institutions, and education systems to support different groups of individuals, including people of different races, ethnicities, religions, abilities, genders, and sexual orientations. 

• Diversity - embracing the differences everyone brings to the table, while acknowledging the benefit of the multiple perspectives, ideas, and solutions provided when individuals with different backgrounds, identities, and views collaborate and are heard. 
• Equity - treating everyone fairly and providing opportunities for everyone to succeed, considering their traits, including resources, support, and potential accommodations to help those with disabilities thrive in the workplace. 
• Inclusion - creating an environment where people of all backgrounds can thrive and contribute to their fullest potential. (From the NAACP definition; see their page on DEI here)

In the United States, there is strong evidence that people of color, women, queer people, people with disabilities, and immigrants face significant barriers. Black, Latino, and Native people have an increasing unemployment rate that is much higher than the white population. Women are half of the population, but only 11% of CEOs and only 28% of people serving in Congress. People with disabilities earn less on average than people without disabilities. LGBTQ people experience discrimination at higher rates than their straight and cisgender peers. 

To address the many social disparities that exist, DEI programs may involve workplace trainings, data-based analyzes, recruitment initiatives, education, and awareness campaigns. While DEI programs are important first steps to understanding how people from different groups may be treated, they are not the ultimate goal. Rather, the goal is justice and fairness in all aspects of our society. If and only when that is accomplished, will the need for DEI programs be unnecessary. 

History of DEI Programs

While the specific acronym of DEI or "diversity, equity, and inclusion" likely originated in the early 2000s, the United States has had diversity programs since its founding. However, these diversity programs have historically increased in moments when the United States was forced by justice activists and movements to confront its longstanding discrimination and oppression of certain social groups. Below presents a timeline by century of some of these "DEI" programs.

The Early Republic

Above: The Declaration of Independence (top) and the Africans' School started by Anthony Benezet.

The United States declared its independence from Great Britain by stating that "all men are created equal" with the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This statement gave birth to the idea of equity, diversity, and inclusion. While not all Americans interpreted it as such (certainly, many white men in power excluded women, Indigenous, Black, and other people from these lines), civil rights groups, including abolitionists and suffragists, from the start referenced the Declaration of Independence as to why their movements were just (here is another excellent piece on the topic from historian Annette Gordon-Reed). Black citizens of Massachusetts, seizing on the words of the Declaration of Independence, petitioned their state to abolish slavery in 1777.

In fact, DEI may even pre-date U.S. independence, as Anthony Benezet may have started the first educational DEI program when he established several different Philadelphia schools in the 1750s that specifically educated enslaved Black people and women, and his attempts to persuade the fellow white men of Philadelphia about the evils of enslavement through public conversations. About a decade later, possibly the first school for Black children was established in Williamsburg, Virginia. In 1798, after numerous rejected petitions to start a school for Black children, Prince Hall opened the African School in Boston. Similarly, women rights activists engages in similar educational and political campaigns to gain equality, which also lead to numerous conventions, meetings, and educational programs that advocated for gender equality. The first schools for girls was established at Salem Academy in North Carolina in 1772 and the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia in 1787, which was followed by a significant increase in educational opportunities for women in the early 1800s.

Above: A pro-slavery mob burns Pennsylvania Hall during an abolitionist meeting in 1838. 

Yet, these early DEI programs also faced attacks from the white majority. For instance, as anti-slavery began to gain more national attention, in 1835 and 1838 respectively, pro-slavery mobs in Boston and Philadelphia attacked abolitionist meetings. To prevent the spread of anti-slavery ideas, many southern states passed anti-literacy laws targeting enslaved African Americans. In many ways, these were the first anti-DEI movements. Today, DEI opponents have not resorted to violence, many of the same tactics, including book bans and harassment of DEI proponents, still occurs. 

Post-Civil War

As the Civil War broke out over slavery, DEI programs again increased. During the war, the Union army created several programs to specifically recruit Black soldiers, including the United States Colored Troops (and the Massachusetts 54th Regiment) and women's rights activists committed to the cause also found ways to spread messages of gender equality. The federal government created numerous DEI programs during Reconstruction, including the Freedman's Bureau (including schools for formerly enslaved Black children and what became HBCUs).  

Above: An illustration of the Massachusetts 54th Regiment at Fort Wagner in South Carolina (top) and a Freedman's School in Roanoke Island, North Carolina (bottom).

With the passage of the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments (and a series of civil rights acts passed by congress in the 1860s and 1870s), African Americans gained important constitutional protections. This lead to more advocacy around DEI. Specifically, African Americans, such as W.E.B. Du Bois and Carter G. Woodson, began advocating for Black educational opportunities and the teaching of Black history in schools (ironically, in a recent visit to the Carter G. Woodson House in Washington, D.C., I noticed this anti-DEI sign on its door that include this statement).

Much like the DEI work being done during the Early Republic, there was also a backlash from supporters of white supremacy, patriarchy, and other forms of oppression. The period after Reconstruction may have seen the largest backlash against equality and DEI efforts were the main target. This is the era of Jim Crow laws, the creation of the Ku Klux Klan, and legal restrictions on Black people. It is in this context, and 30 years after the Civil War, that southern white people erected statutes to enslavers and Confederates and added the Confederate battle flag to state flags (such as Mississippi in 1894 and Georgia in 1956; Georgia currently has a flag based on the Stars-and-Bars first flag of the Confederacy).

20th Century

Above: Followers of Marcus Garvey parade in Harlem in August 1920 (top) and Black activists create Freedom Schools in the south during Freedom Summer in 1964.

In the 20th Century, DEI had two larger waves. The first coincided with the Great Migration of Black Americans to the north and changing social views due to rapid urbanization. During this period, many Black intellectuals helped establish a movement referred to as the New Negro Movement (popularized by the writings of philosopher Alain LeRoy Locke) with associated educational programs. This is the same era that Black History Week (later Black History Month) and African American-centered curriculum began to take hold in some schools). Meanwhile, queer communities began to form, which offered places and spaces of greater safety. Women gained voting rights and greater acceptance in the workforce.

By mid-century, with the successes of the modern Civil Rights Movement, queer rights, immigrant rights, and disabilities rights activists, the federal government began to codify DEI efforts, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Affirmative Action, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and programs for people with dis/abilities. In education, some schools started to focus on multicultural education, ethnic studies, and the creation of student affinity groups and programs to support women students. The creation of southern Freedom Schools in 1964 and the Black Panther Party's various social programs are just a few other examples. The federal government established the Minority Serving Institution designation in higher education (which the Trump administration recently argued were unconstitutional).

Throughout the 20th century, DEI efforts were again attacked by those wanting the maintain the status quo. Throughout much of the 20th century, white supremacist groups terrorized people of color and conservative courts limited the power of civil rights protections. In more nuanced ways, corporations protested laws related to diversifying the workforce, and when diversity programs were implemented, they were often superficial. Reagan attempted to undo Affirmative Action programs altogether during his presidency (which the Supreme Court later helping accomplish this in education with ramifications for other aspects of American life). 

Why the Attacks on DEI Programs Today and What to Do About It in the Classroom?

Above: Many states have passed laws banning DEI programs (top). The Trump administration continues to use its power to limit DEI efforts; Trump has stated on numerous occasions that "DEI is dead" (bottom).

Current attacks on DEI programming are yet another attempt to stop any recent progress related to fairness for people of color, women, immigrant, queer, trans people and people with disabilities. Rightwing extremists and conservative lawmakers are attempting to regress society to a pre-Civil Rights Movement era. As recent movements such as Black Lives Matter, Me Too, Stop AAPI Hate, Day Without Immigrants (2006, 2017, and 2025), marriage equality, and transgender rights have started to influence public opinion, reactionary attempts to erase any progress are sure to become even more dominant. There are not only attempts to ban DEI programing in government, education, and work places, but also the government whitewashing of the histories of communities of color, Indigenous communities, women, queer, trans, immigrant, and people with dis/abilities. 

Above: Students and faculty protest to save DEI programs in Texas (top-); Target faced a major boycott as a result of cutting their DEI programs; this is a scene of protesters in Chicago (bottom). 

So, how do we teach about this? We need to explicitly teach about the long history of all forms of supremacy and erasure, and help students imagine ways to have a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive society in the present and future. It means that we must teach about Native resistence during colonization, Black resistence during enslavement and segregation, and the resistence of Latino, Asian American, queer, immigrant, people with dis/abilities, and women to unfair and unjust treatment and government policies targeting them. It means stopping their erasure from the curriculum. It means specifically teaching about this latest wave of anti-DEI attacks in the context of many previous efforts, why DEI programs are important, and what we can do to be a part of movements for justice in the present.

Teaching About Human Rights in the Trump Era (Avoiding the "Both-Sides Trap")

 

 

Above: Protests have regularly occurred in opposition to the Trump administration's attacks on U.S. democracy, growing authoritarianism, and disregard for human rights (including immigrant rights). These are images from Madison, Wisconsin on February 5, 2025, New York City on April 19, 2025, and Los Angeles on June 6, 2025.

NOTE: This post relates to current events and will be updated to reflect additional incidences and increasingly available evidence. 

There are not two sides to human rights. Period. 

It should not matter your political party affiliation or what community you live in, if Americans cannot agree that everyone deserves human rights, then this will be the end of the United States.

Of course, the U.S. government has a long history of violating people's human rights (treatment of Native peoples, enslavement of African Americans, Japanese American incarceration during World War II, treatment of queer Americans, treatment of women, child labor, etc.). However, even during these unjust moments, Americans citizens would express a collective commitment to basic human rights (granted, some Americans were still excluded from those rights due to their race, gender, class, sexual orientation, abilities, religion, or immigration status). While those in power may have disregarded people's human rights, movements formed to ensure freedom and civil rights. In that context, pleas to value most opinions were valid. It did seem that there was potential for the United States to become more democratic and more just. (Note, I did not say all opinions were valid; it was never right to give value to the opinions of slavery proponents, segregationists, supporters of settler-colonialism, etc., for they wanted to violate people's human rights.)

Similarly, we once lived in a nation where different political opinions should have been respected in the classroom, as well. For many years, I taught conservative, liberal, progressive, and libertarian students in my high school social studies classroom. I taught during politically difficult moments, such as September 11th, the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, and the Great Recession. These events challenged me as a teacher to find a way to create a fair balance in my classroom, where honest student opinions could be heard. I did my best to give equal weight to different political views (which was not always easy in very politically liberal Massachusetts).

Sadly, that time has come to an end (at least for now and at least in the United States). 

We no longer live in a nation that is engaged in an honest debate between different political ideas and policies. This is the precipice to the end of American democracy and the decline of American human rights. We need to start treating it as such in the classroom and beyond.

One political party has made clear that is does not have any care to follow any of the old democratic norms. That common ground of all political ideologies believing in human rights is over. Donald Trump and the current Republican Party are clearly willing to erode and possibly end democracy to rule in whatever way they see fit. They are continually ignoring the rule of law. They have no interest in listening to the views of Americans and governing according to their wishes. They are openly disregarding human rights, because they can. Not long ago, some members of the Republican Party showed alarm at Nixon's disregard for the law, police violence used on Rodney King, U.S. soldiers participating in torture at Abu Gharib, or (albeit very briefly) the January 6th Capitol Insurrection; today, this same party is widely unified in their cheering of similar incidents of constitutional and human rights violations by the Trump administration (see below). A lack of disagreement around these issues and shows how far past reasonable political debate we are and a sign that they are an authoritarian party (at minimum  they should be described as a far right party).

In this current moment, it is especially crucial that social studies teachers do not fall into the "both-sides trap," or what media literacy scholars would call false balance. Not all stories have two equal sides (sometimes they have many sides or have primarily have one side). Not every historical event had two equal arguments for how things should have accrued. There were not two sides to the Holocaust, American slavery, colonization of Native people, Japanese American incarceration, and child labor. These events were wrong and unjust. Giving weight to counter-arguments, such as the Holocaust did not happen (a common conspiracy theory), downplaying the horrors of American slavery (commonly espoused by conservative politicians), denying atrocities and genocides against Native people (a fringe argument), Japanese American incarceration was justified (a fringe argument), or child labor was good for children (argued by some today), is dangerous. It opens the door for abhorrent ideas like slavery, genocide, mass murder, concentration camps, or child labor to return in the present. Similarly, there are not two sides to the eroding of American democracy and human rights. We are near the beginning of a very difficult and troubling timeline. As such, teachers must not give equal weight in their classrooms to arguments that support Trump disregarding the Constitution, ignoring the rule of law, or violating human rights. This is when teachers (and all Americans) must resist.

In this blog post, I hope to explain how history, government/civics, economics, geography, ethnic studies, and other social science teachers must use this journalism concept in their own teaching, especially when it related to the teaching of human rights in our current era of rising authoritarianism and politically-motivated cruelty. I don't write this post lightly. I understand how this may come across to some people, especially those who voted for or support Donald Trump. I know this is made harder by students (and parents and community members) who watch partisan media sources that do not have any commitment to evidence and are little more than political propaganda. Yet, I ask anyone of good conscious to look deeply at what is happening to the United States and try to understand why social studies teachers must play an important role in teaching against anyone's human rights being violated. 

This time is different. Donald Trump and others in his administration (and we need to be clear that this is not only one person) represent the greatest threat to human rights in the 21st century. As the most economically and militarily powerful country in the world, their actions do not only effect Americans, but everyone across the entire globe. Teachers must understand this and realize that they have a responsibility to defend democracy and justice in this moment. 

Six months ago, the Trump administration returned to power with Republican political control of Congress and the Supreme Court. Since then, the United States has quickly become an illiberal democracy, which Zakaria described as democratically-elected governments that ignores "constitutional limits of their power and deprived their citizens of basic rights and liberties" (you can watch an Associated Press clip on illiberal democracy in Hungary here). Historians and political scientists have described the Trump administration as authoritarian, white Christian nationalist, and fascist. At their core, all three of these movements are anti-democratic and anti-human rights.

The executive branch, with a general ignorance from both Congress and the Supreme Court, has detained migrants and some citizens without due process sending some to prisons in foreign countries (including countries that the migrants have no relationship to) and others dying in ICE custody, used the military to patrol citizens during peacetime (including what has been ruled unlawful in L.A., Portland, Chicago; and in D.C. and possibly next in Minneapolis) and encouraged masked and unidentified ICE agents to use extreme violence (including the killing of 2 people, Renee Good and Alex Pretti), refused to release federal funds in education, health care, and the environment approved by a bipartisan Congress, essentially taken bribes from foreign governments and companies (leading to Donald Trump personally profiting by at least $1.4 billion in his first year), and floated the idea that Trump may run for/is entitled to a constitutionally-prohibited third term or interfer with or cancel Congressional elections. Here is a summary of the many constitutional violations by the Trump administration from law professor Steven Schwinn and the Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights lists the many human rights violations here. Each one of these are a small test to see if our democratic system will allow the Trump administration to violate constitutional and human rights. So far, each test has been successful and we are creeping further down the road to an illiberal democracy without human rights protections. But, all hope is not lost. As a number of scholars have argued, democracies can die (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), but they also can re-emerge (sometimes more vibrant than before) (see here, here, here, here, and here). Human rights can be restored. Here is a helpful list on how to save U.S. democracy from the Democracy Docket.

Defining Human Rights

Above: Eleanor Roosevelt holding poster of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not long after its passage by the United Nations in 1948. 

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, gender, class, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. They are essential to defending humanity. They are a cornerstone of democracy. Without human rights, we cannot have a world of freedom and peace. The United Nation's "Declaration of Human Rights", created over 75 years ago, offers one framework to use with students. It outlines 30 articles that define what human rights include. 

These include (I have chosen some that are particularly important for the current times): 

• "The right to life, liberty and security of person." 
• "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
• "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." 
• "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
• "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." 
• "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association." 
• "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family." 

Below, I list four topics and resources that social studies teachers can use to have students understand how abnormal the Trump administration's actions are within U.S. history and to consider ways that Americans can defend democracy and human rights. I have very intentionally included conservative, liberal, progressive, and libertarian sources, as well as mainstream and alternative media.

Issue 1: Treatment of Migrants and Use of Military/Law Enforcement Agents

Above: Large Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid in Los Angeles on June 6, 2025 and a press conference after the release of Massachusetts teenager Marcelo Gomes da Silva, who was arrested on May 31, 2025 by ICE on his way driving to volleyball practice with teammates. 

"The Constitution Guarantees All People — Regardless of Citizenship — due process, free speech and other rights. DHS’ Refusal to Respect Those Rights is Ruining America’s Image as a Land of Freedom and the Rule of Law" (CATO Institute)

"How Can the President Put Soldiers on the Streets of Los Angeles?" (Brookings Institute)

One in Five ICE Arrests Are Latinos on the Streets with No Criminal Past or Removal Order (Cato Institute) 

"The Law and Lawlessness of U.S. Immigration Detention" (Harvard Law Review)

"What Does “Due Process” Mean for Immigrants and Why Is It Important?" (Vera Institute of Justice)

"Why Due Process Matters for Every American, Including Non-Citizens" (International Rescue Committee)

"Trump Seizes Power Over D.C. Using Rarely Invoked Rule" (The New Republic)

"Pentagon Plan Would Create Military ‘Reaction Force’ for Civil Unrest" (Washington Post)

 

Issue 2: Attacks on Civil Rights

Above: A woman holds up a sign demanding voting rights be protected at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 24, 2025.

"Trump Administrations Human and Civil Rights Rollbacks" (The Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights)

"Statement on the Trump Administration’s Attacks on Civil Rights (New York City Bar Association) 

"The Human Toll of Trump's Anti-Trans Crusade" (American Civil Liberties Union) 

"Trump on Voting Rights" (American Civil Liberties Union)

"Pushing Voting Rights Enforcement out of Justice Department Poses Risk to Democracy" (Human Rights Watch)

"Under Trump, the Justice Department is Stepping Away from Some Voting Rights Cases" (National Public Radio)

"White Christian nationalists are poised to remake America in their image during Trump’s second term, author say" (CNN)

"Trump has put Christian nationalists in key roles" (The Guardian) 

 

Issue 3:  Disregard for the Constitution and Rule of Law

 

 

 

Above: On his first day in the White House, Donald Trump pardoned all of the January 6th insurrectionists, who were convicted by juries of their peers and violated numerous federal laws in an attempt to subvert the outcome of the 2020 Election. Trump signed an executive order closing the Department of Education and laying off thousands of federal workers, which meat protests.   

"Trump's Pardons: Political Violence, Hate Groups, and the Rule of Law" (Stanford Law School)

"Trump's Pardons for Rioters 'Disturbing,' Former Top Jan. 6 Prosecutor Says" (ABC News)

"Many Trump Administration Fiscal and Regulatory Actions Are Unlawful" (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities)

"Why DOGE Is Unconstitutional" (Washington Post) 

"Trump Dismantling Education Department Violated Constitution, Lawsuits Say" (Democracy Docket)

"Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful: How the “Nondelegation Doctrine” Limits Congress" (The Fulcrum)

"President’s Third Term Talk Defies Constitution and Tests Democracy" (The New York Times)

 

Issue 4: Corruption

 

 

Above: Trump's home and private club Mar-a-Lago, and other Trump properties, charge (and often over-charge) the government for their use by the President during his first and second terms. In May 2025, the Trump administration accepted a free plan from the government of Qatar. In the days after taking office, Donald Trump started selling a "meme coin" and later hosted its biggest buyers at Mar-A-Logo. 

"Trump 2.0 and the Foreign Emoluments Clause" (American Enterprise Institute)

"Tracking Trump’s Unprecedented Corruption (Again)" (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington)

"Trump’s ‘Free’ Jet from Qatar and Corruption’s Slippery Slope" (American Oversight)

"The Number: How much is Trump pocketing off the Presidency?" (The Atlantic)

"Crypto, Wallets, Bibles: Trump's Assets top $1.6 billion in Latest Disclosure" (Axios)

"People Are Paying Millions to Dine With Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago" (WIRED)

"The Government's Bar Tab at Mar-a-Lago" (WNYC)

"Trump Business Deals Revive Questions About His Family Profiting Off the Presidency" (Public Broadcasting Service)

"'What Life Is This?': The Crypto Investors Who Bought a Dinner with Trump" (Politico)