On Tuesday, June 23, the U.S. Senate passed a War Powers Resolution that could limit President Trump in Iran. The resolution passed with the help of 4 Republicans voting with Democrats. Among these 4 were 2 Senators who also voted against Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025: Susan Collins (R-ME) and Dr. Rand Paul (R-KY). Thus, Collins and Paul are the only 2 Republicans to vote against the defining features of Trump’s foreign and domestic agendas. In an era where loyalty is key in the Republican Party, this is significant. Collins’ political motivations are easy to infer. She is a Republican Senator running for re-election in Maine, a state which Trump lost by about 7% in 2024. Thus, she has been distancing herself from Trump throughout his second term in order to be free from his agenda in her 2026 race. Further, however short political memories may be among American voters, politics is a game of identity. Collins voted to convict Trump on articles of impeachment in 2021 and proceeded to work with President Biden on his infrastructure effort. She has made a name for herself as an independent Republican. Giving that reputation up would not only put her at an electoral disadvantage in a light blue state, but such a concession would also erase her claim to fame. Rand Paul is much harder to pin down because he represents Kentucky, a state that Trump won by 30%. He, unlike Collins, is not up for re-election this year, making Trump’s support in this moment unnecessary. However, Paul only has 2 years left in his Senate term, and he knows via the political downfall of colleagues like Senator Bill Cassidy that Trump holds grudges. Thus, getting off Trump’s naughty list will be harder for Paul in the leadup to 2028 than it was in the leadup to 2022, when he helped lead the charge against Trump’s impeachment and ultimately garnered the President’s endorsement. If Paul is hoping to veer towards Trump after the 2026 midterms, it may not work because of his vote against the OBBBA and his vote for the War Powers Resolution. And yet, he may need Trump’s support in 2028 if he wants to win a Senate primary in Kentucky. So what is his political motivation in distancing himself from Trump? The President’s ill will would be a hurdle in a 2028 Senate primary, but it might be useful in a 2028 Presidential primary, something Rand Paul is candidly considering. There are two sorts of primary campaigns Paul could run: In both, distance from Trump will be a requirement. If Paul is serious about winning a Presidential nomination, then he will have to set himself apart from a Republican field filled with Trump’s cabinet officials like Marco Rubio and Trump-loyal Senators like Ted Cruz. Running on fidelity to Trump would not get Paul anywhere, especially when his claim to that fidelity is comparatively weak to other Presidential contenders. If Paul is simply aiming to make a statement, then there would be no statement to make from someone who is just echoing the President and his supporters, making political uniqueness important. However, unless Paul is planning to retire after a statement campaign, he would not be able to take any hostility towards Trump too far. In 2016, Paul made a statement, realized he could not win a Presidential primary, and dropped out to run for re-election in the Senate. If he wants to do the same thing in 2028, then he still has to have enough political capital to run for Senate after a Presidential campaign, capital that will not exist if he makes a pure enemy out of Donald Trump. Thus, a statement campaign would be a very difficult line to walk, but it would nevertheless require some degree of distance from Trump that he is currently trying to establish. Rand Paul may not be trying to play politics. Lawmakers are human, and he may just be voting against Trump when Trump doesn’t align with his principles. However, if he is playing politics with these votes, then he is playing Presidential politics, where he stands to benefit from being independent of Trump. Paul said that his chance of running was “50/50,” but if his political posturing tells us anything, the question is not whether or not he will run, but whether or not he will be serious about winning when he does run. Take it to the bank: Rand Paul is soft-launching a bid for President of the United States. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole
By Jack Jurjans
Recent announcements from the Trump administration have brought renewed attention to the future of the Department of Education. The administration plans to shift oversight of special education programs to the Department of Health and Human Services while transferring many civil rights responsibilities to the Department of Justice. Supporters argue that moving these responsibilities to agencies with more specialized expertise could improve efficiency and reduce bureaucracy. Critics, however, worry that the changes could create confusion for families, weaken protections for students, and further reduce the role of the Department of Education. As discussions continue, the proposal has sparked broader conversations about how education services should be managed and what role the federal government should play in protecting students’ rights. New Changes Emerge According to administration officials, the changes are part of a larger effort to reorganize federal education programs. Under the proposal, special education oversight would move to the Department of Health and Human Services. Civil rights investigations involving schools would be handled heavily by the Department of Justice. The administration has stated that students will continue receiving services and protections during the transition. Officials argue that these agencies already possess experience in healthcare and legal enforcement, making them better equipped to oversee these responsibilities. However, advocacy groups and education organizations have raised concerns about the potential impact on students and families. Some argue that special education and civil rights issues are closely tied to schools and should remain under the Department of Education’s oversight. Public Reaction and Discussion The announcement has generated strong reactions from educators, parents, disability advocates, and policymakers. Many organizations have begun examining what the proposed changes could mean for students, families, and schools if implemented. While opinions differ on the potential impact, the proposal has sparked discussion about how federal education programs should be managed and who should be responsible for overseeing them. As debate continues, the issue has become part of a larger national conversation about the future of education policy in the United States. The Role of Government and Education The proposal also raises questions about the federal government’s role in education. The Department of Education has historically been responsible for overseeing federal education funding, enforcing civil rights laws in schools, and supporting students with disabilities. Supporters argue that these responsibilities can still be fulfilled even if different agencies manage them. Critics counter that separating these functions could create challenges in coordination and oversight. As policymakers continue discussing the proposal, many questions remain about how these changes would be implemented and what long-term effects they could have on students and educators. Policy and Responsibility The administration’s proposal reflects a broader debate about efficiency, accountability, and access to services. Supporters believe restructuring federal oversight could reduce bureaucracy and allow different agencies to take on responsibilities that align with their existing work. Critics argue that maintaining strong protections for students should remain the priority, regardless of which agency oversees the programs. As discussions move forward, policymakers face the challenge of balancing government efficiency with the needs of students, families, and schools. Why This Matters Now The proposed changes extend beyond government restructuring and raise broader questions about the future of education policy in the United States. These developments raise important questions moving forward: As debate over the proposal continues, the outcome could affect millions of students, families, and educators nationwide. While supporters and critics disagree on the best path forward, the discussion highlights the ongoing challenge of providing effective educational services while maintaining accountability and access for those who rely on them. Until decisions are finalized, the conversation surrounding these changes will likely remain an important part of broader discussions about education, civil rights, and the role of government in American schools. Sources Trump further guts Education Dept. by shifting oversight of special ed, civil rights Trump to shift more programs out of Education Department in latest move to shutter agency Trump administration shares new moves to dismantle more of the Education Department How the Education Department is using civil rights laws to bring schools to heel
By Taylor Lopez
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a Jewish organization that defines many buzzwords, such as antisemitism and racism, recently classified the online term “goyslop” as a slur and a white supremacist conspiracy term. “Goyslop” combines the Hebrew/Yiddish word “goy,” which refers to non-Jews and Gentiles, with “slop,” meaning cheap food. It comes from the idea that Jewish elites are intentionally distributing unhealthy, highly processed food or media to weaken and control non-Jews. Goy appears several thousand times in the Talmud and introduced to the general public after it was found to be used frequently as a slur for non-Jews in the released Epstein files. The ADL contends that “goy” is an innocent word, while “goyslop” is an antisemitic derogatory term. They have gone on to say that “A slur doesn’t stop being a slur because teenagers started using it—Normalizing this kind of language is dangerous.” In another post, they said that “‘Goyslop’ is not quirky internet slang worth normalizing—@nytimes should know better than to give this language a platform. There is no excuse for the ignorance of those who use it.” However, many have pushed back against this sentiment online, arguing that “goy” is “absolutely a derogatory word,” as it was neither coined nor spread by white supremacists or anti-semites. The word derives from Hebrew and Jewish people, with some highlighting the hypocrisy of Jews being allowed to use the term, but when the goyim themselves begin to say it and claim it as their own, suddenly it is classified as a slur. Some have also equated the ADL’s logic to saying it is like members of the KKK telling black people not to say the N-word, as it was white people who invented it. The idea of preventing hatred and division between different groups of people is a positive sentiment. Even so, this situation has only caused many people to view the Jewish people as liars and hypocrites. Ultimately, if situations continue to occur, it is very plausible that the antisemitism, which the ADL is attempting to prevent, will only grow larger.
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Follow Us